Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Industrial Economy

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the state of the industrial economy in Wales.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): The Welsh industrial economy is doing extremely well. Between 1990 and the end of 1993, manufacturing output in Wales increased by 5.3 per cent. compared with a reduction of 4.3 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that, and its consequences for his constituency.

Mr. Jones: But there is no room for complacency, with tens of thousands of Welsh people unemployed—3,000 of them my constituents. Will the Minister therefore argue strongly in Cabinet, to help the aerospace workers, for the purchase of the future large aircraft? Will he also, in Cabinet, consider how British Airways may be persuaded to buy the Airbus? He might even consider talking to Mrs. Redwood, secretary to the board.

Mr. Redwood: Of course I will do all in my legitimate power to further the interests of the workers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in the aircraft manufacturing industry; but he, with the rest of the House, might like to welcome the fact that unemployment has fallen by 6.9 per cent. in his constituency in the past year. Furthermore, unemployment in the travel-to-work area is now 7.9 per cent., which is well below the Welsh, United Kingdom and EC averages.

Mr. Roger Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that growing numbers of engineering apprentices are a classic sign of an improving industrial economy? Can he tell us the good news on that aspect as well?

Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is announcing today that 550 young people will benefit from the new training package for engineering apprentices in the current year, entailing expenditure of £3.6 million on them and on the necessary related activities. We want a stronger engineering industry in Wales; this is a positive way of achieving it.

Mr. Denzil Davies: If the Welsh economy is doing so well, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why average incomes per head in Wales are now the lowest not just in

Britain but in the United Kingdom? In other words, we are now poorer than Northern Ireland. If the economy is doing so well, why are the figures so bad?

Mr. Redwood: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that manual manufacturing earnings in Wales are in line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom? Why does not he welcome the 10,000-plus additional full-time manufacturing jobs? Why does not he welcome the other initiatives that we are taking to improve the situation in Wales?
For us, it is "better made in Wales". For the Opposition, it is "better moan in Wales".

Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Welsh Development Agency still plays a key role in the development of the Welsh industrial sector? If that is so, will he explain how jobs will be created in Gwynedd at a time when the WDA is taking dozens of jobs away from Gwynedd and when the commitment to decentralising from Cardiff to north Wales appears to be being reneged on? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment to the effect not only that the WDA will have a central role and the resources to do its job on an all-Wales level, but that that will apply particularly to Gwynedd?

Mr. Redwood: Of course I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Gwynedd will benefit from the WDA's programmes in the same way as other parts of Wales that are eligible for assistance do. He knows full well that I have set out to the House guidance to the WDA making it clear that, in areas such as land reclamation and winning new investment for Wales, it has a most important job to do.

Mr. Ron Davies: Since the Secretary of State has mentioned the importance of training, will he acknowledge the work done by the WDA's Gateway Euro project, which is based at Treforest and acknowledged by the European Commission as a centre of training excellence which is vital to equipping Welsh industry with the skills needed to compete in the new European marketplace? If he does realise the value of that institution, why is he closing it? Is this another example of the Secretary of State, just like the Prime Minister at Corfu, putting Conservative party ideology and self-interest before the interests of the people whom he is supposed to represent?

Mr. Redwood: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman is trying to be even more aggressive than usual today—it could be his last occasion on the Front Bench at Welsh questions. Of course, I want high-quality training in Wales and I have already made an important announcement this afternoon about how we are progressing with that aim. There are a number of ways of achieving that, but the best is through Government programmes and the training and enterprise councils, which we are supporting and expanding.

Local Government

Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the extent of proposals by local authorities in Wales to provide two-tier services.

Mr. Redwood: I was disturbed to read in the South Wales Echo that South Glamorgan is operating a policy of


providing highways services, especially repair and maintenance, based not just on highways criteria but on certain social criteria. I hope that, as a consequence, there will not be a two-tier service and that that council will recognise its safety obligations to all the electors in its area.

Mr. Richards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not only disgraceful but unlawful for South Glamorgan county council to discriminate against Conservative-controlled areas in the provision of services, as Mr. Russell Goodway, the leader of the council, has said it is his authority's intention so to do?

Mr. Redwood: It would indeed be illegal to discriminate in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. I note from the report in the South Wales Echo that the council is following a policy that uses criteria in addition to highways criteria. The council must be very careful to ensure that its safety and statutory obligations are fully met.

Mr. Rogers: The right hon. Gentleman's proposals for the reorganisation of local government will create unitary authorities, but already those authorities have come together to create a second, two-tier system of local government in south Wales. An important element that has been incorporated into that is industrial development.
In considering the powers that might go to those local authorities, will the right hon. Gentleman make a little more effort on behalf of his Government? They have been in power for 15 years and have effectively destroyed the economy of the south Wales valleys. That is manifest in a survey published today which shows that, unfortunately, my constituency has the lowest incomes of any part of the United Kingdom. The valley communities of south Wales earn only about 64 per cent. of the national average wage. Is not that an absolute disgrace and will the right hon. Gentleman now admit that his policies and those of his predecessors—the so-called valleys initiatives—have fallen into disrepute and must be replaced?

Mr. Redwood: Of course not. The valleys initiatives have achieved a great deal. I fully accept that much more needs to be done and that is what I and my colleagues are working to achieve. I hope that Labour Members will offer some support. They would be shocked if I announced the withdrawal of the valleys programme, but I hasten to reassure them that I have no intention of doing so. It is a fine programme which can offer a great deal.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about local government, unitary authorities will offer good-quality services where the right councils are elected. It is the right framework for them. I just wish that Labour would stop messing about with its policy on regional assemblies, especially as the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is in considerable difficulty over whether he wants one immediately. But then we know that there is much less to the hon. Gentleman than meets the eye.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Have not the Government inflicted two-tier services on local authorities, especially in community care? I remind the Minister of Welsh Office circular 30/94, which specifically says that community care should not be given to individuals if it is too expensive.

Mr. Redwood: A large amount of additional money has rightly been put into that policy. Hon. Members on both sides of the House want the most frail and disabled

members of our community to get decent care. We are backing local government and giving it the necessary money and I want to see high-quality services for all in need.

Railways

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met Railtrack managers to discuss improvements to the main railway lines in north and south Wales.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): My right hon. Friend and I have not yet had an opportunity to meet Railtrack, but we hope to meet the chairman shortly.

Mr. Jones: The Minister is aware that we are awaiting a report later in the year on a major European study on the potential for freight traffic along a number of routes, including the north and south Wales main lines. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, even before the completion of that report, Railtrack is actively considering investment in the track, especially in north Wales, so that it can improve the efficiency and maximum use of trains on both Regional Railways and InterCity? Will the Welsh Office now give a commitment to back that investment by Railtrack, to improve not only our economic performance in north-west Wales but our environment?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I am glad that he acknowledges that investment is a matter for Railtrack, which has received the MDS Transmodal report on electrification of the north Wales line. I have received assurances from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that Railtrack will continue to maintain the north Wales line to a fully functional standard. Of course, we shall assist Railtrack when it puts investment proposals before us.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there have been improvements to main line services in the Principality in recent years, particularly in respect of journey times between London, Chester, Llandudno and Holyhead? Does he further agree that the greatest improvement that we could see this week would be the early resumption of talks in the present rail dispute?

Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend is probably aware that the dispute is before ACAS. I am sure that he, like me, wishes those negotiations to proceed and that the strikes that have damaged travellers and rail staff should cease.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister ask Railtrack's chairman to restore main line status to the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth line, and tell him that it is totally unsatisfactory to build a brand-new station such as Welshpool with no communications system, no telephone, no information provision, an out-of-date timetable and not even a lavatory for people who are waiting for late trains? Is the Minister aware that once a train has left Shrewsbury, Railtrack is unable to identify its location until it reaches Machyllneth?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I have learned to accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's statements in a somewhat quizzical spirit. The running of the railways is a matter for British Rail, Railtrack and the north-west train operating unit.

Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that there would be much more investment in the railways if Railtrack had not spent £7 million on new offices in the City of London and millions of pounds trying to persuade a sceptical public of the so-called benefits of privatisation, and if it had settled the rail dispute earlier, instead of provoking and prolonging it because of constant interference?

Sir Wyn Roberts: On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman knows that the dispute's settlement and the current negotiations are very much a matter for Railtrack. Investment in Welsh railways is also a matter for Railtrack, but of course my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will discuss those matters when we meet Railtrack's chairman.

Welsh Language

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the bodies outlined in the Welsh Language Act 1993 have submitted schemes to promote the Welsh language to the Welsh Language Board.

Sir Wyn Roberts: None. The Welsh Language Board will begin serving notices on those public bodies required to prepare Welsh language schemes after Parliament has approved the guidelines that the board is required to prepare under section 10 of the Welsh Language Act 1993. The guidelines are currently being drafted by the board.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the fact that, although the Act has been on the statute book for a year, there are no guidelines as yet and nobody has come up with schemes for advancing the Welsh language prove that all that was said from these Benches and others last year was true—that the 1993 Act was a lot of English words which did little for the Welsh language? When will the Government do something that delivers the goods?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is critical of our parliamentary procedures and legislation. The 1993 Act lays down precisely what must be done. We established the Welsh Language Board under that Act: it has been appointing staff, is consulting, is in charge of £581,000 worth of grants and is preparing guidelines. Frankly, it is not an easy task to bring to the House guidelines that will secure the full approval of Parliament.

Development Grants

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the Welsh Office received legal advice concerning the payment of grants from the Welsh Development Agency to the Development Board for Rural Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Redwood: The Department received appropriate legal advice in 1982 and decided that the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 and the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 provided an acceptable statutory base for the payment of grant.

Mr. Jones: Will the Secretary of State tell us why, over the past 12 years, the Welsh Office has found no opportunity to inform the WDA of the basis of its legal opinion, or to clarify the difference between the two legal

opinions taken by the agency? Will he now apologise to the BBC journalists who brought the matter to his attention? He should be very thankful that they did so.

Mr. Redwood: That is a bit rich, coming from the hon. Gentleman. The BBC's allegation that a member of my staff had said that the issue was technically flawed was simply untrue: no member of my staff said any such thing, and it is not the Welsh Office view. A number of other serious allegations were made in the programme, which suggested that my predecessors had deliberately broken the law to further political ends. That, too, is quite untrue.
The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the legal issues surrounding the 1982 policy are very similar to those surrounding the February 1979 policy allowing the issue of loans to companies. That question was settled by officials and Ministers in the Labour Administration. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that those actions were illegal, as he has suggested that ours were?

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in mid-Wales there is a strong feeling that the amount of grant aid made available to that region in the past 12 years is inadequate, when contrasted with the billions of pounds that have been poured into Opposition Members' constituencies? Has my right hon. Friend ever received any complaints from Opposition Members about any specific grant? Does not their conduct, and that of the BBC, provide a clear example of the bitter pill that people in mid-Wales would have to swallow if there were ever another Labour Government?

Mr. Redwood: I certainly do not recall being advised by the Labour party that we should not make the payments. I do not recall Labour Members querying any of them, or suggesting that they were not doing good. My hon. Friend has made his point extremely successfully; he is also right to infer that when Labour passed the legislation for both the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales, it had in mind wide-ranging activities to assist industry and commerce in both parts of Wales.

Mr. Morgan: Will the Secretary of State finally come clean and tell us the basis of that legal advice? Perhaps at the same time he will make clear when the formalities were explained to the House. He will know that in June 1982 the Minister of State said that the formalities would be announced later. Even by the Minister's "Lightning Gonzales" standards, to leave the matter until 1994 and give the House no further explanation is to take a somewhat lackadaisical attitude to the legalities of parliamentary accountability for public money.

Mr. Redwood: We have made the basis clear. It is in section 3 of the 1975 Act, which deals with the general powers of the agency, and I made it clear in my statement that legal advice was taken at the time. We have never denied that some members of the WDA took a different view at the time; I understand that that was discussed with Welsh Office officials in 1982. I am also told by my officials, who have looked very carefully at the files, that the counsel's opinion that the agency then took had not been passed across to the Department. I have now asked for that opinion, and am studying it.

Local Government Reorganisation

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations in favour of his proposals to remove Ewenny, Saint Bride's Major and Wick from Bridgend into the Vale of Glamorgan he has received from people or organisations with these communities; and how many he has received against.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Since the publication of the White Paper, five in favour and 185 against.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister refer to my question again? I believe that the five representations in favour were all from organisations outside those three communities. May I inform him of the deep bitterness felt by all voters—especially Conservative supporters, members and elected councillors—about the way in which the Welsh Office has completely ignored the weight of opinion resulting from the consultative process, and the way in which it has slapped democracy in the face?

Mr. Jones: No. I gave the answer strictly in terms of the hon. Gentleman's question. If I had wanted to expand it, I could have said that the number in favour had increased almost threefold, taking into account those outside the three communities, who recognise the affinities in the three communities and want them to be part of the wider Vale of Glamorgan. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is only going through the motions. If he had wanted to do more than that, he would have pressed his amendment on the subject to a vote on 15 June.

Mr. Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in 11 of the past 12 years, electors in the Vale of Glamorgan have enjoyed lower local government taxation than their counterparts in Ogwr and that there is widespread support in the Vale for the Government's proposals? Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the hon. Member for Bridgend to acknowledge that the Local Government (Wales) Bill has completed its passage through the House of Commons and that it is high time that he adopted a positive attitude by urging the merits of the Bill on those of his constituents who will benefit from moving into the Vale of Glamorgan?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend makes his points very well. Vale of Glamorgan borough council has a record of providing better services at lower cost. We have approached the question on the basis of where the areas would be more appropriate. They are more rural in character and they will have a far better future in the Vale of Glamorgan.

Housing Conditions Survey

Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the next housing conditions survey for Wales will be published.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: It will be published in the autumn.

Mr. Smith: Will the Minister explain how local authorities can invest in housing if the data that they use are nine years old?

Mr. Jones: That justifies our wisdom in deciding to carry out an interim housing survey. We wanted to update

the figures for all of Wales. That is being done, and when we have finished refining the process, consideration of housing investment will be far better informed.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware that at every Saturday surgery hon. Members are hearing heartbreaking cases of people having to wait for up to two years or more for home improvement and renovation grants? At the same time, hundreds of building workers are out of work in our constituencies. Would not it be a good idea to match the two, to the benefit of both, by making new investment in housing improvement and renovation?

Mr. Jones: That confirms, again, the desirability of our policy of seeking to make home renovation grants as widely available as possible and as closely targeted on need. Another £149 million is being provided this year, which should produce almost 10,000 improved homes.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Minister consider in particular the problems of Dinefwr borough council, whose recently commissioned survey showed that things are much worse now than they were in 1986? The number of unfit homes has risen from 1,938 to 2,463 and one house in six has been designated as unfit. Meanwhile, there is a five-year waiting list for mandatory grants.

Mr. Jones: Yes, we will continue to consider the problems of Dinefwr and, of course, of all other councils in Wales. Since the present grant regime was introduced in 1990, we have made available £850 million, which is a major contribution towards achieving our policy objective of improving homes in Wales.

Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister accept that housing policy must be made in Wales to meet Welsh needs? Does he accept that there would be no justification for shifting emphasis in the Tai Cymru budget from houses for rent to various forms of assisted ownership, which is happening under the Housing Corporation in England? If the Government propose to make such a shift, will he ensure that it is announced to the House in good time so that it can be strongly opposed?

Mr. Jones: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's attitude, since all surveys of Welsh people have clearly shown that ownership of their own homes commands a high place in their ambitions. We should be seeking to respond to that, and we are doing so.

Mr. Richards: Does my hon. Friend agree with Cynon Valley borough council, which is run by the Labour party, which has said that the problem of homelessness does not exist in its borough?

Mr. Jones: I am truly amazed by this claim by a valley local authority, albeit a Labour one. I am glad to say that it is not the Labour party which is in control of housing policy in Wales. We are providing substantial sums. Despite such obtuse attitudes, we shall carry on doing that.

National Health Service Trusts

Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Welsh NHS trust chairmen's group to discuss relations between the Welsh Office and the NHS trusts.

Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend will be meeting NHS trust chairmen on 11 July when a number of topics will be discussed.

Mr. Ainger: Will the Minister take the opportunity when he meets Mr. Derek Morgan, the chairman of the group of chairmen of NHS trusts in Wales, to apologise to him and to the other trust chairmen for the total inadequacy of this year's financial settlement and for the lateness of the announcement, which came only two weeks before the beginning of this financial year? Will he also take the opportunity to explain to Mr. Morgan and his colleagues why the percentage cash rise in England is twice that in Wales and why the announcement was made to the English trusts two months before it was made to the Welsh ones?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman made much the same point during the Welsh Grand Committee debate on 15 June. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State increased the moneys available to the hospital and community health service in Wales by 4.3 per cent., and announced that in December. A similar announcement was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health with regard to the regions in England. There is no need whatever to apologise for that increase, which has resulted in more than one third more in-patients and out-patients being treated in Wales last year than were treated in 1979. That is our record and we are proud of it.

Mr. Hain: When the Minister responds to the proposals put by the local health authorities in West Glamorgan on the future of the east unit of the West Glamorgan trust, will he listen to local opinion about the future of Neath and Port Talbot hospital? Will he ensure that it has proper accident and emergency facilities and that its maternity facilities are fully fledged, and not the midwife unit that the Secretary of State has proposed? People locally regard their hospital in Neath as a precious resource. They do not want to see it downgraded when the new hospital is eventually built on Baglan moor.

Sir Wyn Roberts: We will of course carefully consider all the representations made to us about that particular hospital, just as we always listen to representations made about new hospitals, of which we have set up quite a number in Wales. Again, that is a record of which we can be proud.

Mr. Roger Evans: Can my right hon. Friend assist the House? To what extent are NHS trusts in Wales meeting the targets being set for them?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that, as well as increasing activity to record levels, the trusts in Wales have met all their targets for this year.

Mr. Ron Davies: The Minister just referred to the Neath and Port Talbot district general hospital. He will be aware that that hospital was closed on 90 separate occasions last year because of a shortage of beds. Yet the Government propose to reduce the number of beds available in that catchment area by 200. That is typical of what is happening in planning, so when the Minister meets the chairmen—the original question refers to that meeting—will he apologise for the chaos that has been caused for those who are trying to plan the national health service in Wales?
The Minister's own research, the Welsh health planning forum's study, which was published last week, flatly

contradicts the pronouncements by the Secretary of State for Health. She maintains that hospital beds can be reduced by 40 to 60 per cent. The Minister's research suggests that the minimum figure of 40 per cent. would "permanently damage" health provision. Will he now give us a clear answer? Which figure should Welsh health planners use, his figure or her figure?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman should know that there has been an increase in throughput at hospitals and in the use of beds simply because of the advances in medical science and treatment. There will be further advances, of that I have no doubt. I can give the hon. Gentleman this certain assurance—there will be sufficient beds in Wales to deal with accidents, emergencies and such requirements as patients have, and no patient will be forced into day treatment.

Electronics Companies

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet the management of electronics companies based in Wales to discuss inward investment.

Mr. Redwood: I have met many electronics companies over the past year, including Sony, Assat, Aiwa, Pilkington Electronics and Panasonic. I shall see companies over the summer to discuss inward investment, including another visit to Sony.

Mr. Fabricant: Is not it the case that, despite the Opposition's love affair with the social chapter and the on-costs that that would bring about, and despite the Opposition's love affair with the idea of stripping away our democratisation of the trade unions, we have seen a huge amount of inward investment in that region and that, as a result, we have a large pool of electronics expertise in south Wales, which is possibly unique in Europe? What is my right hon. Friend doing to promote that?

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that Opposition Members support policies that would damage Wales and her competitiveness. We are proud of the fact that Wales is now largely strike free. [Interruption.] We are proud of the good value that it offers to investors. We are proud of the skills and the talents of the Welsh work force. All Opposition Members can do is jeer at my hon. Friend's great tie because they can think of nothing better on which to comment.

Community And Town Councils

Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received over the last six months on the future role of community and town councils in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Nine since the publication of the Bill.

Mr. Llwyd: The Minister will know that, during the passage of the Local Government (Wales) Bill, I tabled an amendment to the effect that town and community councils should be better consulted in the role of planning. I have now received almost 300 letters in support of that amendment from various councils in Wales. The Minister said at one stage that the purport of the amendment would be included in guidelines soon to be issued to the new


unitary authorities. When will those guidelines be in place and will they contain, as he has already said, the proposals in the amendment?

Mr. Jones: We are working on those guidelines. They are important, and they need to be in response to the exact concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. I cannot give him a precise date at this point. They will be brought forward as early as possible and, yes, I am looking forward to their fully covering the important subjects that we have discussed.

Patients (Statistics)

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many (a) in-patients and (b) out-patients were treated in NHS hospitals in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what the figures were in 1979.

Mr. Redwood: In the year to 30 June 1993, NHS Wales treated 480,000 in-patients and 580,000 new out-patients, compared to 350,000 and 429,000 respectively in 1979. That represents increases of 37 per cent. and 36 per cent.

Sir David Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures show, above all else, the improvement in the health service during the past 15 years? What is the scale of the improvement since the health service reforms were introduced?

Mr. Redwood: There has been an acceleration in the pace of improvement in treating patients in the past couple of years, which I welcome. It has been related to more day-care surgery, as well as to improved efficiency in all parts of hospital and health management. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that there has been a massive expansion of health facilities and health care over the past 15 years in Wales. It is high time that Opposition Members, as well as the public, welcomed that.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet representatives of Clwyd county council to discuss the effects of the current rate support grant settlement on educational services in the county.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any plans to do so. Clwyd received the highest increase in standard spending assessment of any Welsh county council in 1994–95. It is for individual local authorities to decide their spending priorities.

Mr. Hanson: Is the Minister aware that some 200 teaching jobs are still being lost this year in Clwyd county council and that much of my postbag is related to the loss of teachers and the lowering of educational standards in the county? It is not good enough to say that we have received a higher level of grant when the Minister knows that the grant has been cut by £6 million this year overall, that much of that grant is ring fenced and that Clwyd has had to make deep cuts. Will he now review the capping criteria, meet the council to review how the grant is set and ensure that there is an improvement in the situation?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman stops ranting at me and starts hectoring his own Labour council, because Clwyd has managed a real-terms cut this

year, when Welsh local education authorities as a whole have managed an increase. It grieves me, as it should grieve the hon. Gentleman, that his Labour friends on the council are acting out of political pique—it seems—against school children.

European Union

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to strengthen links between Wales and the European Union.

Mr. Redwood: Links have recently been strengthened by Wales's achievement of one extra Member of the European Parliament—although we trust that that Member will give proper representation to the interests of Wales—and, of course, by the development of the Committee of the Regions. The main way in which Wales is looked after is through strong representation in the Council of Ministers similar to the strength of representation that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister showed at the recent summit.

Mr. Flynn: I thank the Secretary of State for Wales for campaigning in the European and local elections in my constituency and congratulate him on his campaign. It helped us to achieve the best results that the Labour party has had this century. Can he tell us why one vote in 12 is a veto in the European Council, but when 86 per cent. of the votes in Wales are against the Government, we still have no voice to stop Tory legislation in Wales?

Mr. Redwood: In order to modify Conservative legislation, Opposition Members need to get a majority in this House of Commons. I look forward to the match in the next general election, when I am sure that we shall reaffirm our majority for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Racial Hatred Prosecutions

Mr. Gapes: To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions there have been for incitement to racial hatred in each year since 1979; and how many cases were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions each year.

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Since 1979, 79 defendants have been prosecuted for offences concerning incitement to racial hatred. I am placing a breakdown by year in the Library. Records of cases by reference to possible offences are not maintained.

Mr. Gapes: In view of the serious increase in the anti-Semitic and racist material being circulated in Britain and the increase in material being put out by neo-Nazi groups and an extremist group called Hizb ut Tahrir, which has been operating in my constituency, is not it about time that serious consideration was given to taking up the views of the Home Affairs Select Committee about strengthening and enforcing the law against all those who incite racial hatred?

The Attorney-General: I entirely understand and share the hon. Gentleman's concern. I have had constructive meetings recently with the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the all-party committee on race and community, both of which centred on the aspects to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I have to make it clear, and it is worth


the whole country bearing it in mind, that the groups which disseminate this disgraceful material can be extremely cunning. Every effort that can be made by the public, the hon. Gentleman and anyone else to bring to the attention of the police the necessary material to find the perpetrators should be made.
I should add one thing. In relation to some of the other material, I draw attention to the recent amendment in the Criminal Justice Bill to add a section beyond section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 to introduce a new offence of causing intentional harassment, alarm and distress.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware not only that the racial minority groups in Britain do not feel that the law adequately protects them against the evil of racism but that, five years ago, a report of the Home Affairs Select Committee recommended that the Crown Prosecution Service should monitor the outcome of all racial incidents cases but it has so far failed to do so? The Home Affairs Select Committee has again recommended that that action be taken. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider that recommendation more positively this time than his predecessor did last time?

The Attorney-General: I will certainly take up the point that my hon. and learned Friend makes. He will be glad to know that it is already being taken up by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Two steps are in hand. The first is that in Greater London, where many of the problems occur, awareness training is beginning for 300 members of the Crown Prosecution Service. Secondly, a working group is examining precisely the point that my hon. and learned Friend makes about monitoring, with a view to constructive action in the near future.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Attorney-General agree that where successful prosecutions are brought, the sentence should be more reflective of the hurt caused than of the oddity and eccentricity of the causer?

The Attorney-General: Without commenting on individual sentences, let me say that I well recognise the force of the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, and I am sure that it will be widely recognised in the relevant quarters.

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the work of the Crown Prosecution Service.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The Crown Prosecution Service dealt with 1,454,239 cases in the magistrates court and 114,521 cases in the Crown court in the past year, and is responsible for conducting prosecutions fairly, effectively and efficiently.

Mr. Barnes: The Crown Prosecution Service has issued a document in support of the victims of crime and is seeking to assist them according to its policy statement. How can the Crown Prosecution Service do that when, in many of the cases referred to it by the police—including cases of racial harassment, which we have heard about—it decides that there will be no prosecution? Is not there a requirement that there should be more effective

prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service so that victims can begin to be in a position where assistance can be given to them?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the criteria that the Crown Prosecution Service applies in deciding whether to bring cases are clearly set out in the revised code, and I hope that the effect of the clarified criteria will lead to more prosecutions. In fact, the discontinuance rate, to which he referred, has fallen in the past year from 13.5 to 12.9 per cent. in the magistrates court and from 8.1 to 7.6 per cent. in the Crown court, so things are not quite as gloomy as the hon. Gentleman would have us believe.

Mr. Brandreth: I welcome the publication of the revised code of practice for Crown prosecutors, written as it is in good plain English. Can my hon. and learned Friend use this opportunity to praise the work of the CPS in Chester, especially its current priority of improved working relations with the police?

The Solicitor-General: I willingly do that. As well as being written in plain English, the code is written in plain Welsh.

Mr. John Morris: I welcome, with pleasure, the annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Does the Solicitor-General agree with her view that the new code
may have the effect of bringing more criminals to trial"?
Will he keep well in mind the disquiet expressed last autumn that, while the Home Secretary was presiding over an ever-rising crime wave, there were dozens of empty courts, especially in the Crown courts, because of the failure to prosecute? Can we be assured that the CPS will no longer lay itself open to be accused of pursuing fewer serious charges than justified, despite the dismay recently expressed by a senior judge at Snaresbrook Crown court?

The Solicitor-General: The facts do not justify that complaint. If one analyses the more serious cases that are dealt with in the Crown courts, one sees that the indictable-only cases component—that is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I, in the trade, call heavy cases—has gone up from 18 per cent. of completed cases in 1991–92 to 21 per cent. in the past year.

Sir Anthony Grant: Was the recent prosecution of PC Guscott launched by the Crown Prosecution Service or by the police? Whoever actually launched it, can my hon. and learned Friend tell the blithering idiots that they should have a little bit of common sense and that any such prosecutions in the future will be intolerable?

The Solicitor-General: The police referred the file to the Crown Prosecution Service which, applying the criteria which applies to all cases, decided that it was a proper case to prosecute. Let me emphasise that, in this country, prosecutions are taken without reference to any political pressure or any hue and cry that might result after the case is brought. Police Constable Guscott struck the young man in hot blood. He recognised that. He pleaded guilty when the charge was put to him.

Serious Fraud Office

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the work of the Serious Fraud Office.

The Attorney-General: The Serious Fraud Office is currently working on the investigation and prosecution of 51 cases of serious and/or complex fraud.

Mr. Bayley: Does the Attorney-General support the proposal, which is being canvassed widely at the moment, that many serious frauds should in future be dealt with not by criminal proceedings but by City regulatory bodies? Has he looked at the most recent report from the SFO to this House, which shows that the average amount of money involved in the 48 cases under consideration when the report was presented to us is in excess of £100 million? If the courts are to be less used in future, at what level of money will a fraud be regarded as serious enough to press criminal proceedings in a court of law?

The Attorney-General: The cases that come before the SFO are, by and large, very big, heavy and complex cases. I agree that the SFO should consider carefully with the regulators whether there is a case for certain of the cases that it is considering prosecuting being dealt with by regulators. Where there is substantial plundering of public or private moneys by the alleged offenders, that is a proper case for prosecution in a court of law.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Malawi

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the ODA is providing to the newly elected democratic Government in Malawi.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): We are increasing our aid to Malawi to help the new Government to pursue their economic and political reform programmes and to mitigate the effects of poor rains.

Mr. Spring: Given the attention that has recently been paid to the arrival of another democracy in Africa, will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the establishment of democratic government in Malawi? What discussions have taken place with President Muluzi about furthering relationships between the United Kingdom and Malawi?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am happy to endorse my hon. Friend's words. The new president was in Britain recently and met my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers. We wish to encourage the new Government, and this year we are increasing substantially our bilateral aid—of which we are the largest donor—to some £30 million.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister will be aware that awards given to Malawi in the past for medical help are being altered substantially. Will he undertake to look closely at the way in which overseas aid is granted? The fact that the people of Malawi were so determined to vote in their general election, and that it was such a fair and free election, is to their enormous credit and we must do everything that we can to help them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I know of the hon. Lady's great interest in health matters in Malawi and her specialist knowledge of them. As she knows, we are making changes,

with the aim of giving more emphasis to primary health care in rural areas, and we will be developing plans to do just that.

Sir David Steel: May I press the Minister to do more than simply welcome the election of the democratic Government in Malawi under President Muluzi? When will the British Government restore fully the cuts made on human rights grounds during the time of Dr. Banda?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have substantially increased our aid this year and I understand that it is as high as it has ever been, if not higher. That is as a result of the recognition that we should help that country, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we encouraged to hold elections. I think that we have honoured what he pressing me on.

Gaza and Jericho

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he proposes to allocate for aid in Gaza and Jericho in the current year.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): We expect to provide £70 million over the three financial years from 1994–95 in help to the Palestinians and support for the middle east peace process. That includes our share of the European programme of help to the west bank and Gaza, our contribution to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and our own bilateral technical co-operation programme. My figure includes help to the rest of the west bank and to Palestinian refugees generally, as well as to Gaza and Jericho.

Mr. Janner: The right hon. Gentleman understands the importance of the Palestine Liberation Organisation succeeding in managing the economies of both Gaza and Jericho. May I thank the Government for what they have done so far in increasing aid, but ask that much more be done to ensure that that management proves highly successful in the future, because if it does not, there will be trouble for all?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely right. The administration of the Gaza strip and Jericho is not easy by any standards. We had begun by thinking that we would not give help for recurrent costs, but we are now doing so, in response to arguments from persons such as the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the Palestinian people's expectations that their living standards will rise are not fulfilled there is a danger that Muslim fundamentalists will increase their sway in that part of the world? Will he therefore press the European Union not only to give aid but to trade on an increasing scale with Gaza and Jericho?

Mr. Hurd: Immediate aid has been given, about which I have just given some account. Training programmes are also offered. For example, we are helping to train senior Palestinian police officers at Bramshill. Trade is also taking place, as my hon. Friend mentioned. It is also important that the Palestinian leadership should be seen to assert its control in the area and I hope that it will not be too long before Mr. Arafat returns Jericho.

Cambodia

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution the United Kingdom is making to the clearance of mines in Cambodia; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: Since October 1991, we have contributed more than £1.7 million.

Mr. Mullin: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we should undertake to make a long-term commitment to mine clearance in Cambodia? Does he also agree that, having once invested a considerable sum in undermining the Government of Cambodia, we should spend as least as much on aiding their survival in the wake of democratic elections?

Mr. Hurd: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. We join in offering substantial help to the new Cambodia. In June 1992, we pledged $30 million at the Tokyo conference. Of that, $24 million has been committed to specific activities and $14 million actually spent. We are clearly and rightly involved.

Mr. Lester: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that none of the mines laid in Cambodia were supplied from Britain but all came from other countries? Does he agree that the money and resources that we have devoted towards clearing them is greater than that given by the majority of other countries, because it is designed to try to give the Cambodian Government the facility to deal with the difficult problem?

Mr. Hurd: Yes. The second point is correct and I believe that the first one is also.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Secretary of State accept that land mines are a major obstacle to development in Cambodia and many other countries? Is he aware that one doctor working in Cambodia has said that land mines are being cleared an arm and a leg at a time? Does he accept that 10 times as many civilians as soldiers are killed by land mines and that the only solution is a complete ban on the export of anti-personnel mines?

Mr. Hurd: We supported last year's motion at the United Nations for a moratorium on land mine exports. There is a lot of confusion about the matter. We believe that there is still a legitimate role for land mines—for example, in protecting an RAF airfield. We believe, however, that there should be clear rules on their use, on how they should be placed and on what safeguards should be applied. Those rules are contained in the UN weaponry convention. We have now decided to ratify the additional protocols attached to the Geneva conventions and we hope that the whole process for this country will be completed by the end of this year.

Aid Programmes

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to target aid by ring fencing donations for specific aid programmes.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Our bilateral aid is carefully planned to meet recipients' priority development needs. We monitor all stages of implementation to ensure that our contributions are used as planned and not diverted to other purposes.

Mr. Fabricant: I am relieved to hear that answer. My hon. Friend will know that I fully support the know-how and other funds given to the former Soviet Union, but does he accept that the Russian Federation is still involved in programmes such as the biopreparat—chemical warfare—programme? Therefore, is not it important that we ensure that the money is directed to where it is intended?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Aid diversion is a problem in all aid programmes and ODA officials are fully aware of that. We are not deeply concerned about diversion of our aid because we have procedures to prevent any damage of that kind.

AIDS (Central Africa)

Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being provided to central African countries to deal with the incidence of AIDS.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: So far this year, we have committed some £49 million to health projects, up to half of which is for projects that deal with sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.

Mr. O'Brien: With 9 million people in sub-Saharan Africa infected with HIV, that works out at about £4 a patient. It is not very good, is it? Does the Minister realise that, in many sub-Saharan countries, up to half the population is under 15 years told and therefore not sexually active yet? Is there not, therefore, the potential for a major contribution by this country to an education programme on that matter, which might begin to slow the progress of the disease?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I touched on in my answer—I could explain it further in a discussion or letter to the hon. Gentleman—our contribution is not just for AIDS matters but for wider programmes of the kind that he describes. Those include educational and other programmes about sexually transmitted diseases and other such matters. If the hon. Gentleman studies deeper, he will find that ODA Ministers are directing their minds to that matter.

European Council (Corfu)

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the meeting of the European Council which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Corfu Council put another three building blocks in place in constructing post-Communist Europe. First, the treaties of accession signed with Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden will help to create the wider Europe that we seek—a European Union that extends from the Atlantic to the Arctic. I warmly welcome the positive vote on accession in the recent Austrian referendum. I hope that referenda in the other three EFTAN countries this autumn will prove equally successful.
Secondly, we agreed in Corfu that the association agreements with our central and eastern European partners must be fully and urgently implemented; so should the United Kingdom-Italian initiative to link those countries more closely with the foreign affairs and home affairs pillars. That will help them to prepare for full membership of the European Union as soon as possible. Cyprus and Malta will also be involved in the next stage of enlargement.
Thirdly, the European Union signed a partnership and co-operation agreement with Russia, one of the most comprehensive agreements ever concluded between the Community and another country. President Yeltsin said that the agreement symbolised Russia's return to the economic life of Europe as an equal partner. He also pledged the support of his Government in bringing about stability in central and eastern Europe and his willingness to work closely over former Yugoslavia.
Russia has just signed the partnership for peace agreement with NATO and, on 9 July, President Yeltsin will play a full part in the political debate at the Naples summit. I warmly welcome Russia's increasing integration with western political institutions.
In the discussion of the problems facing people throughout Europe, I suggested a series of moves to combat drug trafficking and other international crime. The drugs problem throughout Europe is growing. Enough cocaine has been seized in the European Union this year alone to provide 24 million individual doses. I pressed for more effective cross-border intelligence gathering on drug trafficking. I urged the Community to strengthen the Europol drugs unit and to set up speedily the full European police office, which should have a wide remit to tackle organised cross-border crime. I underlined the importance of action within our own countries and suggested that the Union should hold a conference on drugs and organised crime, and should involve also countries in central and eastern Europe. I was glad to receive wide support for those proposals, which were endorsed in the conclusions of the Council.
We made progress on two economic issues high on the British agenda. First, we agreed that markets in telecommunications and energy should be further liberalised to give Europe's consumers access to wider, cheaper and more efficient services. Secondly, we strongly supported the German proposal to set up a European deregulation task force with business men as members,

precisely as we have done in this country. That was agreed. The task force will help to cut back burdensome Community regulations on business.
The Council endorsed the macro-economic guidelines drawn up by the Economic and Financial Council on the conditions for sustainable growth. We agreed that it was essential to continue cutting public sector deficits and reducing inflation. I reported that the British economy had grown by nearly 3 per cent. in the year to this spring, and that unemployment had fallen here by more than 300,000 since the end of 1992. Britain remains the fastest-growing of the big economies in the European Union.
The Council approved a first priority list of 11 trans-European network projects. That includes the second channel tunnel rail link and proposals to improve the rail links between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Any contribution to the financing of such projects must come from within existing Community resources. At our insistence, the Council agreed that there could be no financial guarantee from the Community for the trans-European network. We believe that Europe's taxpayers must be protected against such open-ended commitments.
We heard further evidence that the subsidiarity principle is being successfully implemented. We expect the number of main legislative proposals coming out of Brussels this year to be about half the number of those in 1993 and one quarter of the total four years ago. That is a very significant improvement.
In external policy, the Council discussed Ukraine, and agreed to step up support for economic reform and nuclear safety there, tied to the closure of Chernobyl. That discussion will be taken forward with the United States, Japan and Canada at the economic summit in Naples in early July.
The Council once again discussed Bosnia. The contact group has done valuable work based on the European Union's plan, but there is an urgent need for the parties to show the will for a negotiated settlement if that process is to succeed. We agreed that the European Union would make every effort with the United States and Russia to bring the negotiations to the point of decision.
Let me now turn to the presidency of the European Commission. The treaty lays down that the Commission President should be selected by "common accord" to serve a term of five years. Common accord is vital. For the President of the Commission to serve the whole Community effectively, he must enjoy the confidence and support of all of its members.
Before the Corfu Council, we told the Presidency and other partners that we supported Sir Leon Brittan's candidature and believed a genuine consensus of all 12 member states to be essential. No one disputed the necessity of a genuine consensus.
When we heard that Mr. Dehaene was thinking of putting himself forward at a late stage, we privately informed the Belgian Government and other partners that we could not support him. We warned that it would not be possible for him to attract a consensus of the whole Community. We hoped, therefore, that his candidature would not be pressed.
Neither then nor at any later stage did any partner say that either Sir Leon Brittan or Dr. Lubbers, the two long-standing candidates, was unacceptable. Both, of


course, had outstanding credentials and long experience of the Community—Sir Leon as a Commissioner for six years and Dr. Lubbers from 12 years on the European Council.
At the Corfu Council, four states—representing nearly half the European Union's population—did not support Mr. Dehaene in the long discussion on the first evening. In several interventions, I made our strong views very clear to the Council, as I had in a number of bilateral discussions.
On the following morning, Sir Leon and Dr. Lubbers decided to withdraw their candidatures. Other European countries indicated that they could accept Mr. Dehaene. I maintained my position that we could not. I said that I had given the matter careful thought, and that our decision would not change at any stage. I reiterate that position in the House today. I suggested that consultations should be put in hand to find a candidate who had the support of all member states. The German Chancellor, who takes over the Presidency later this week, said that he hoped to resolve the matter speedily, if necessary by convening a special summit on 15 July.
Our position was not a personal criticism of Mr. Dehaene, although in our view Sir Leon and Dr. Lubbers had much stronger qualifications. For the next five years the Commission needs a President who is in tune with the times and the mood across Europe—a President whose instincts are with enterprise and competitiveness. Above all, Europe needs a President of the Commission who is selected with the full approval of all member states.
The Corfu Council has highlighted an issue of increasing concern to many European Union members—the way in which decisions are reached. It is an important point of principle that the key decisions require unanimity and that all member states should have an equal opportunity to participate in collective decision making. The procedures used for this decision, before and during the Council, were not satisfactory. There was no need for this matter to have come to an open division at a European Council; it should have been avoided. Had more comprehensive consultation taken place, as in the past, and had the views expressed by different states been heeded, it could have been avoided.
I believe that there are a number of well qualified people who could take on the post, on the basis of a genuinely common accord. We stand ready to play our part in consultations on it. There is no reason why that should not lead to an early and satisfactory outcome.
I wish to see Europe succeed. I want it to regain the affections of the people of Europe. I want a Europe with which all member states—now 12, soon to be 16, then 20—can all feel comfortable. Achieving that may mean disputes along the way. But being a good European does not mean signing up to everything that our partners do. At Corfu we fought for what we believe is in the best interests of this country and Europe. That is what we will continue to do.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement.
We warmly welcome the treaty of accession signed by Austria, Sweden, Finland and Norway, and agree that the result of the referendum in Austria was encouraging. We hope very much that it will be followed by positive results elsewhere in Scandinavia in the autumn.
As the Presidency conclusions confirm, all those countries will bring a great deal to the European Union—not just a net contribution to the Community's budget,

but strong support for open government and for efforts to protect the environment. In addition, they are, of course, as the summit statement says, "in the vanguard" of support for the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty. That means that 15 out of 16 member states will support that chapter.
We also welcome the partnership and trade agreement with Russia, the financial support offered to the Ukraine to close the Chernobyl nuclear reactor, and the progress made on further enlargement, specifically the applications of Cyprus and Malta, which will be widely welcomed in the House, and of Poland and Hungary.
The Opposition are also delighted that the Corfu summit strongly reaffirmed the social dimension of Europe and, in particular, invited the Commission to make
full use of the new possibilities available
from the social protocol.
Another initiative that we welcome is the Council's agreement to involve the Social Affairs Council with ECOFIN and the Commission in further follow up to Mr. Delors' White Paper on growth and employment. We endorse the follow up to the White Paper, particularly the emphasis on education and training and the crucial need to maximise the potential of human resources—to invest in people.
The Opposition are pleased that at least all the other member states and all the new applicants rule out the economics of the sweat shop and agree with the Council that the agreement—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should hear this; they should hear what the Prime Minister has signed up to. We agree with the Council that the agreements on works councils, on the protection of young workers, and on the creation of an agency for health and safety at work all represent significant progress in the European Union's social dimensions.
We are also pleased—despite what the Prime Minister said—that the prospect of further finance to support the trans-European networks has not been ruled out, especially as one of the 11 agreed projects includes the channel tunnel rail link. Does the Prime Minister now accept—I seem to remember him boasting in the past of having vetoed it—that the worth of this project lies in the fact that it might help to redress the growing tendency for Britain to experience all the costs of membership of the EU while our Government resist the benefits?
Will the Prime Minister ensure that one of the first acts of the new Minister working on information technology will be to lift the unfair restriction on British Telecom which prevents it from entering the emerging market for television services? Does he not realise that the quickest way to build an information super-highway in Britain is to allow BT to compete with cable, which the Government refuse to do?
Can the Prime Minister confirm that, during the summit discussions on many of the issues that I have mentioned, and in particular during the positive discussion on the follow up to the White Paper on growth, employment and social policy, he was not present? Is today's report correct, that the right hon. Gentleman attended a three-hour discussion for only a few minutes and did not take the opportunity to speak? Does he recognise that what was agreed, apparently in his absence, enhances the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty—in stark contrast to the right hon. Gentleman's rhetoric?
How much of the right hon. Gentleman's sound and fury about the Commission Presidency is a smokescreen to


hide from his Euro-sceptics the fact that he has accepted a further strengthening of the social dimension in Europe and European intervention to promote jobs?
Has not this weekend been, not a triumph, but a humiliation for the tactics of a Prime Minister who claims to be an ace negotiator but who found himself, and Britain, relegated to the sidelines? May I anticipate the Prime Minister's standard response—that the Opposition simply do not understand how successful he has been—by pointing out that he went to Corfu to promote a British candidate for a senior post in Europe, won no support from any of his colleagues and ended up vetoing a Conservative? May I further remind him that my colleagues and I went to Corfu—[Interruption.] I am sure that Conservative Members want to hear this. We went to promote a British candidate for a senior post in Europe, and we obtained the unanimous support for that candidate of delegations from every one of 15 member states. We need no lessons from the Prime Minister on how to negotiate successfully.
Does not this point up the fact that the Prime Minister has once again put his own standing in Europe before Britain's standing and influence? Does he not realise that what happened this weekend weakens his chances of fighting successfully for reform of the common agricultural policy, and his chances of working to resist the further encroachment of VAT—issues that really matter to the people of this country? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the weekend's events show not that he is a Prime Minister who is strong but that he is weak, a prisoner of his Euro-sceptics, and that yet again it is the people of this country who will pay the price for his failure?

The Prime Minister: I never cease to marvel at the transformation in the right hon. Lady's attitude to Europe. She has slipped effortlessly from slavish and unthinking opposition to the European Community to slavish and unthinking support for everything that emerges from it. Can this be the same right hon. Lady who once said:
If one believed, as many of us do, that the EEC is a prime obstacle to the policies we need, how can we be expected to put our consciences and principles aside and cease to fight to win?
I shall spare the right hon. Lady the other eight quotations that I have.
I welcome what the right hon. Lady said about the accession treaty and the result of the referendum in Austria. I also welcome her support for the partnership and co-operation agreement—the further relationship with Russia and the actions on Chernobyl—and her support for the future enlargement of the Community to include Cyprus, Malta and four other countries, not just the two that she mentioned.
We do accept the social dimension, but her reference to the social chapter relates to those member states that have signed the social protocol, not to ourselves—something which the right hon. Lady may not have understood.
The right hon. Lady said that further finance for trans-European networks had not been ruled out, but I can tell her most emphatically that neither has it been ruled in.
On information technology, I welcome her support for competition—a little late perhaps, but none the less welcome.
The right hon. Lady referred to a discussion. There was a whole series of discussions over lunch and in plenary.

The one in which I did not take part related to economic matters and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, quite naturally, spoke on behalf of this country. In every other discussion I not only spoke but set out this country's position very clearly.
The right hon. Lady spoke of her successful negotiations. She, like me, met members of the socialist group in Corfu. Did she urge them to support Sir Leon Brittan? [Interruption.] I hear the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), saying that she did not support the British candidate. Nor did we hear from the right hon. Lady whether, on an issue of principle and importance to this country, she would have maintained the British veto. She said not a word on that. We cannot get a clear answer from her on that any more than we can from the shadow Foreign Secretary, who has wriggled on every programme on which he has appeared.
The right hon. Lady also referred, without a great deal of knowledge, to the reform of the common agricultural policy—clearly not understanding that the enlargement of the Community to include the central and eastern Europeans would make it absolutely imperative that there was a root-and-branch reform of the CAP.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision he took in Corfu at the weekend on the Presidency was not only right but courageous and popular—popular not just in the Conservative party but throughout this country and in many electorates across Europe? It is the Opposition parties who are isolated from public opinion in this country. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in putting forward his new vision of Europe, that does not result in a Franco-German stitch-up?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support. I made the judgment on the Presidency of the Commission—which is the most important executive post to be determined—on the basis of what I believed to be right for the European Union as a whole and right for this country. For the reasons I gave, and although I have nothing personal against Mr. Dehaene, I did not believe that he was the right person for that job. I believe that the decision taken will have a great deal more support across Europe than is being speculated upon by many Members on the Opposition Benches, and I have no doubt that it was the right decision, in the short term and the long term, for this country and for Europe.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that the present fast-deteriorating situation in Bosnia gives grave cause for concern? If the present fragile and much-breached ceasefire does not give way to a negotiated settlement, is it not the case that we may well be witnessing a terrifying escalation in the war in Bosnia, with the probability that it will spread to the rest of the Balkan peninsula?
As to the Presidency, the Prime Minister's attempt to portray the Punch and Judy farce at Corfu as Henry V at the battle of Agincourt—with the right hon. Gentleman in the title role—is deeply unconvincing, to say the least. Is it not the case that everybody in Europe and most people in Britain realise that the Prime Minister sacrificed Britain's long-term influence and interests to obtain short-term


headlines in the Murdoch press and to deliver a large dollop of appeasement to the right wingers on his own Back Benches?

The Prime Minister: All the right hon. Gentleman achieves with interventions of that sort is to show how little he understands about negotiation in Europe and the issues at stake. I accept that there is a fundamental difference of approach to European issues between my party and the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman has been very frank. He does not consider the sovereignty of this Parliament important—he has made that perfectly clear. I disagree. He does not believe that we should maintain and exercise the right to veto. I strongly disagree. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that on any occasion when this country may disagree with our colleagues in Europe we should automatically accept what they believe to be right and not what we believe to be right—which is the necessary consequence of not using a veto—he speaks for no one but himself and a tiny minority.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the situation in Bosnia is grave. The ceasefire is holding, but we must bear in mind that a ceasefire is all that it is. Even that is not satisfactory. Tragically, another young soldier of the Duke of Wellington's Regiment was killed yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must work extremely hard in weeks to come to turn the ceasefire into a settlement that will last.

Sir Edward Heath: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the fact that he considered himself to be forced to use the veto is a matter for regret, not for rejoicing? I believe that he recognises that the inquest will continue a long time and will overhang the whole of the 1996 discussions about the treaty's future nature.
Does my right hon. Friend recognise, as I do, that Sir Leon Brittan would have made an excellent President of the Union? Does he realise that Sir Leon received no support from any other member state because of the widespread belief that the British Government would use all their powers to bring pressure to bear on Sir Leon to reorder the Community and not to develop the European Union? That fact must be faced.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's major task now is to concentrate on how to resolve the crisis—for crisis it certainly is? It is said to be a matter of principle. What is the principle? We all know that the veto is there and that it can be used—that is not an issue. The treaty clearly describes when the veto may be used. There is no matter of principle involved.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he had nothing against the Belgian candidate. How does he propose to resolve the crisis and to find a suitable candidate? He said that there must be unanimity. Does that mean that only candidates acceptable to the British Government will be agreed to? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] It is not an issue on which there can be general agreement, which is what unanimity is about in a democracy—not domination by one particular country, but the work of all the countries put together.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has raised a number of points, and I should like to respond directly to all of them.
I share my right hon. Friend's regret that it was necessary to use the veto on this occasion. As I said in my

statement, it should not have been necessary, and it could have been avoided had the degree of consultation that took place, for example, in 1984 been replicated. I very much hope that the matter can now be speedily resolved. There have been occasions in the past when the Presidency of the Commission was not approved at a European Council; subsequently, rapid consultations produced an outcome satisfactory to all members of the Community. I hope that that will be the case now.
I also share my right hon. Friend's view of the qualities of Sir Leon Brittan: he would indeed have been an excellent President of the Commission. I do not think that anyone who knows Sir Leon well would imagine that he would have done anything other than that which he believed to be right for the European Union. There is no doubt, in my opinion, that the excellence of his performance as a competition Minister during the past few years weighed against him in the minds of some of our colleagues when they considered who should be President of the Commission.
I believe that we need to resolve the matter with urgent bilateral contacts, and we are ready to take part in those contacts. The point of principle was not whether the veto should be used; as my right hon. Friend said, the veto is there, and it is there precisely to be used. The point of principle was the manner in which the consultations took place, and the manner in which the late candidature itself emerged. 
As for the acceptability of the candidate, what I hope to achieve is a candidate who is acceptable to all members of the Community, not just to the United Kingdom. We are in this as one of 12, soon to be 16. The candidate must be acceptable to all member states. Although that cannot possibly mean that he or she would be the first choice of all member states, I think it perfectly possible to obtain a candidate who will be acceptable to all and who—in the next five years during which he or she has responsibilities to discharge—will carry the confidence of all member states. That is what I wish to achieve with all possible speed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Before we proceed any further, let me point out that—as the House can see—a large number of hon. Members wish to question the Prime Minister. I now want only very brisk questions; otherwise I shall use my discretion, and ask the Prime Minister to answer only one of the questions. I want to call as many hon. Members as possible on this important statement.

Mr. Giles Radice: The Prime Minister has just underlined the importance of consensus. Does he think that there really is a candidate who has the support of all the Governments of the 12 member states—especially when they include a British Government who have just shown themselves to be under the thumb of the Euro-sceptics?

The Prime Minister: As to whether there is a candidate acceptable to all, the answer is yes. The next few weeks will prove that to be the case.

Mr. Tom King: In his efforts to promote someone who was manifestly a very suitable candidate—Sir Leon Brittan—how was my right hon. Friend helped by the statement of the Labour MEP who is now the leader


of the European socialists, who said that even if the Council approved such a choice they would seek to defeat it in the Parliament?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware of that statement, and, to my surprise, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has chosen not to bring it to the attention of the House.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Is the Prime Minister aware that in 1940, when I was 20, it was not considered any great crime to put Britain's interests before the then European consensus? Does he derive some satisfaction from the recent European elections, in which some Opposition parties showed a marked reluctance to put before the electorate proposals for further surrender of Britain's interests?

The Prime Minister: Although not every aspect of the results of the European elections was entirely to my satisfaction, my party certainly contested the campaign on European issues, while others signally failed to do so.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I congratulate the Prime Minister on standing firm against the blitzkrieg tactics of the French and Germans in promoting their candidate. Will he take the opportunity to remind the Europeans that Britain's especially good economic situation, compared with theirs, has arisen not just because of the brilliance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy but because of our escape from the ERM? Will he give that message on their future economic climate as well as his splendid guidance on the Presidency?

The Prime Minister: In the past, I have expressed the view that the deregulatory policies—the supply side policies—that we are following are the right way to create jobs. On this occasion, it fell to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make those points, and he did so.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Why should Britain's interests suffer because we have a puny Prime Minister who is more concerned to reassert his authority—his enfeebled authority—over his rebellious and, indeed, ridiculous right wing than to work and co-operate for the future of that great role of a united Europe?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman speaks for the things that he believes to be important, and he must expect me to do the same; I did so on this occasion.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Has the Prime Minister anything to tell the House and the people of Northern Ireland about the talks that he had with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic during the Council? The agreement was that strand 1 of the talks would include only the constitutional parties of Northern Ireland and Her Majesty's Government, yet, following talks, the Prime Minister announced on television that he and the Taoiseach were discussing strand 1 of the talks, from which the Irish Republic Government were excluded as the talks were internal to Northern Ireland. Having used his veto on one occasion—I agree with what he did—he should use his veto against the Prime Minister of the Irish Government, who keeps insisting that Northern Ireland should be part of his country.

The Prime Minister: No, my discussions with the Irish Prime Minister were not about strand 1, which has been the subject of discussions between the British Government and the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. My discussions with the Irish Prime Minister related to political strands 2 and 3. We still have not achieved agreement, but we are making progress. We have commissioned further work.

Mr. Peter Shore: So far, so good: the Prime Minister has won the first battle over the Presidency, but there will be further rounds to be fought and it is the last battle that really matters. Does the Prime Minister agree that, in strengthening his position against an unwelcome candidate for the Presidency, he would do better to say that our basic objection is to the appointment of an open Euro-federalist as the President of the European Commission, and that our objection will continue if the Commission proposes any other Euro-federalist candidate?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman carried all his colleagues with him, but his intervention was entertaining from where I sat. He would expect me to consider all future candidates on their merits, and I will do so.

Mr. David Howell: I warmly support my right hon. Friend's stand, which in due season will be supported not only by Britain but by many millions of people in the European Union. In setting up the preparatory committee for 1996 at Corfu—the so-called reflection committee, which will have two Members of the European Parliament as members—will he ensure that the House has an adequate and full opportunity to contribute to that committee and a full say in ensuring that we get the right kind of Europe after 1996?

The Prime Minister: I regard that as an extremely important point. The Heads of Government have agreed that a study group should convene in around a year's time to prepare for the 1996 intergovernmental conference. It is highly likely, although it is not a decision for me, that the Select Committee here may wish to take its own considerations and make its own representations directly to the study group. I believe that it would be right for it to do so. It may well be that other groups will also wish to put forward their representations, both to the British Government and to the study group. Clearly, this will be an important intergovernmental conference and it is vital, in my mind, that everybody who has a valid point to put forward should have the opportunity of doing so and the opportunity of discussing it.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: If the Prime Minister's objection to the appointment of the Belgian Prime Minister is essentially procedural in that the nomination was sorted out in secret, behind closed doors, will he, therefore, support proposals to make the European Union's system of appointments more open, more democratic and more accountable?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman bases his question on a misassumption. I have not said that my objection was procedural. I have said that the procedure was part of the reason why we complained. As a point of principle, the procedure was wrong. I also made it perfectly clear that, in my judgment, Mr. Dehaene was not the best


qualified candidate for the job. I do not believe that one should accept anyone other than someone whom one believes is fully qualified for this job. I also made the point that, on key policy issues, I did not believe that the approach that Mr. Dehaene favoured was right. None of those points is novel; I made them perfectly clear the other day and they should be clear to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not only important to ensure that we do not have a federalist as President of the Commission, but that it is essential that we do not have the Germans and the French running the European Community? We should use the reflection group which has been set up in Corfu to ensure that we reduce the role and the powers of the European Commission and the European Union so that we can be sure that we concentrate on the office and the institutions rather than on the man.

The Prime Minister: Whoever becomes President of the Commission in due course, I very much doubt that that person will exercise the influence and authority that Mr. Delors has exercised over recent years. The changing nature and enlargement of the Community make it extremely unlikely that anyone will exercise that authority again. That view is held not only by the British Government, but by the Heads of a number of other Governments.
On my hon. Friend's other points, I mentioned the increasing success of subsidiarity. On new legislation—I take the figures from memory—in 1990, there were about 180 new pieces of European legislation. In the first half of this year, there have been 25.

Mr. Tony Benn: If European co-operation extends, as it must and should, to cover the whole continent, is it not absolutely clear that we shall have to move to a different system under which the nations involved harmonise, by consent, through their own peoples and Parliaments? The real enemies of a new Europe are those who wish to seize all power and to put it in the hands of bankers and Commissioners who are not accountable and cannot be removed.
Is the Prime Minister also aware that the siren voices in this House, in the press and in the City of London are wholly unrepresentative, not only of opinion in this country, but of opinion in other countries in that huge continent? Those countries want to govern themselves and not to be governed by a political class who have contempt for the opinions of ordinary people.

The Prime Minister: I agree with co-operation by consent. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that in the Maastricht treaty we established pillars in three vital areas for co-operation by consent and agreement. There is no doubt that by consent the countries of the European Union can often exercise more influence collectively than individually. I strongly agree that that consent principle should be extended. There are areas for common decision where common consent would not properly work.
My concern is that the influence of some Europeans would move us too fast towards common decision, and not by co-operation or by common consent. That is where I fear that Europe would lose the affection of its people. I do not wish that affection to be lost. That is why I have argued

for the nature of Europe that I set out in the election campaign just a few weeks ago. We must extend co-operation by consent; we shall seek to do so in future.

Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend was quite right to say that use of the veto should be exercised with great reluctance, but, in the circumstances that he has described over last weekend, he was absolutely justified in exercising that veto. Will he now ensure that he works closely with the Germans, during their Presidency of the Community, to find a successor acceptable to all and to help the Germans who themselves have a difficult few months ahead with their elections? When the Council of Ministers makes a proposal, can it also give a job description so that it is quite clear to everybody what is expected of the new Commissioner?

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly wish to work with the new Presidency as soon as it takes up its responsibilities to reach a common accord on a new Commission President as speedily as possible. I cannot yet say who that will be, but I think that there are a number of people who would be worthy of consideration. My hon. Friend makes a valid point about a job description.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Prime Minister said that there were two very good candidates available other than the one being discussed—Sir Leon Brittan and Dr. Lubbers. Will he assure the House that, if Dr. Lubbers's name were to come forward again, he would not use his veto, notwithstanding Dr. Lubbers's federalist tendencies?

The Prime Minister: I made it clear some time ago that, in the event that Sir Leon Brittan's candidature for the Presidency did not receive the support of colleagues, I could accept Dr. Lubbers.

Mr. Ashdown: But Dr. Lubbers is more of a federalist.

The Prime Minister: I could accept Dr. Lubbers. Whether Dr. Lubbers's name will come forward again seems very doubtful.

Mr. Ashdown: But he is more of a federalist.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has probably never met either of those gentlemen. He has certainly never sat and negotiated with them. He has certainly not sat round the table reaching decisions with them. He has certainly not met them in bilaterals time after time after time. The right hon. Gentleman should either speak about things about which he knows or say nothing.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister give us his assurance that any candidate approved by the British Government for the Presidency will pass the test of being in favour of Britain's opt-outs on the social chapter and the single currency and against a further move towards a united states of Europe?

The Prime Minister: We have those opt outs and we intend to retain those opt outs, so the position of the new President on those is not especially relevant. I shall repeat the point that I made a moment ago. I shall look at each candidate for the Presidency on their individual virtues and make a judgment on that.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would the Prime Minister help the House on a question of straightforward


fact? Is it true or is it untrue that, as reported in the press, his Chief Whip told him that if he did not exercise the veto he would be opposed this autumn for the leadership of his own party?

The Prime Minister: I can tell the hon. Gentleman categorically that no such conversation took place and no such advice was received.

Sir Peter Hordern: Is not it important to the future of the European Union that proper consultation between member countries should take place before the summit meetings? How can it otherwise be the case that two well recognised figures, both eminently qualified—Dr. Lubbers and Sir Leon Brittan—were bypassed by a secret conclave between the French and the Germans at Mulhouse? That cannot be a satisfactory way in which to proceed, and it would be a bad day for this country and for the European Union if it were.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend in what he says, and I have every expectation now that there will be a proper consultation over the next few weeks and that a satisfactory candidate, who will be accepted by all, will then emerge.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that, when all the clamour has died down and the flag-waving has ended, in a quieter period, he and others will have to make a choice about who is going to get the job? It would be fair if I were to ask him if he will he give a guarantee to the House that he will veto each and every federalist who is put up for that job.

The Prime Minister: If that was a job application, I would certainly veto the hon. Gentleman. I repeat the commitment that I gave the House a moment or so ago. I will consider every candidate on his merits, and I will not bind myself beyond that consideration.

Sir Peter Tapsell: In stating my full support for my right hon. Friend's cool, determined and far-sighted representation of our country in Corfu, may I invite him to garner support and strength from the fact that the British people instinctively understand that the so-called European Union is increasingly in danger of becoming the latest vehicle for the age-old German desire to dominate Europe so that those who really have the interests of a democratic Europe of co-operating nation states at heart will need to work a good deal more effectively after Corfu to bring that about?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the Community is a collection of nation states, the voices of all of which need to be taken seriously and considered. There is no doubt that the Community must reach its decisions collectively and that no individual nation should have excessive influence.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: Does the Prime Minister accept that I am familiar with the European views of Dr. Lubbers? Will he tell the House precisely how Dr. Lubbers's views on the future development of Europe differ from those of Mr. Dehaene?

The Prime Minister: Well, he is a free trader for a start. I think that that is rather important. He is much more in

favour of subsidiarity and deregulation. He is not in favour of extra expenditure; and he is an Atlanticist. Would the hon. Gentleman like a longer list?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, no matter how he had voted on the Presidency, he would still have had the niggling criticisms from the Opposition Benches? Does he accept that to put the interests of Britain first has to be the aim of any British Prime Minister? Does he agree that it is wrong for the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties to make the statement that we have no influence at all in Europe unless we go along with plans that have been pre-arranged between Germany and France?

The Prime Minister: That certainly is the practical effect of what has been said by the Front-Bench Members of both the Labour party and the Liberal Democrat party. It is all very well saying that we seek co-operation and that a difficult circumstance would never arise so we would never have to use the veto. I am afraid that that is to live in cloud cuckoo land.
The reality is that from time to time, for very good reasons, there are matters in which every nation state finds itself at odds with its European partners. In those circumstances, unless the veto is maintained on matters which may be of vital interest to this country, we would inevitably have to follow the views of others, with no escape route whatever for the British. That is not an acceptable position to the present Government. I regret very much that it is acceptable to the Opposition and to the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: As the relevant article requires common accord, is there not a duty on all members involved to avoid action that could create common discord? The Prime Minister has told us that the customary procedures of consultation were not carried out on this occasion. If they had been, and bearing in mind the support that Dr. Lubbers had from a number of other countries, is it not likely that we would have had Dr. Lubbers as the President of the Commission?

The Prime Minister: I think that is quite possible.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that four nations which did not have a vote in Corfu will warmly welcome the stand that he took on the question of the successor as President of the Commission? They are Austria and the three Scandinavian countries, which do not want to join a European Union on 1 January that is dominated by a French and German axis.
Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the House is deeply disappointed that he has not released the remaining quotations from the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the Leader of the Opposition? In order that we may be aware of the principles of the Labour leadership on Europe, perhaps my right hon. Friend will release one a day for the next eight days.

The Prime Minister: There might well be occasions when it would be appropriate to release some of the others.
I very much believe that it is vital for Europe that the French-German reconciliation continues. All of us who look over a period of years believe that to be entirely right. I very much hope to see that continue and that the close relationship between France and Germany itself will


continue. Equally, we ourselves both seek and now enjoy a close relationship with both those countries and our other European partners. That close relationship does not mean accord on every subject; nor would it ever be likely to be the case with nations of such varied interests. But we seek a common accord wherever we can and we seek the best relationship not only with France and Germany but with France and Germany and our fellow partners in the European Union.

Mr. John Fraser: What accommodation does the Prime Minister anticipate will be reached between the Turkish and Greek communities in Cyprus to enable Cyprus to be admitted as a member of the Community?

The Prime Minister: It is a considerable way off before Cyprus is likely to be admitted as a member of the Community. Certainly, if the dispute between the north and south is unresolved, it will be extremely difficult for Cyprus to be admitted to the Community. What we have said is that we will look at that and consider the case in the next phase of enlargement—that is certainly some years away.
But I share a view that I think the hon. Gentleman would accept: first, we must continue with the United Nations' efforts to try to find a satisfactory accommodation to the long-standing problem of Cyprus. We have, for example, had British troops there now for nearly 30 years, and other United Nations countries for a similar period, so we will continue to seek that accommodation. Secondly, although this is not yet a matter discussed with our European partners, clearly we hope that that dispute will be resolved before it is possible for Cyprus to become a member of the European Union.

Mr. John Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the importance to the Belgian economy of the presence of European institutions in Brussels, it makes it doubly imperative that any Belgian candidate for the Presidency should receive the unequivocal support of all member states?

The Prime Minister: I believe that any candidate needs the unequivocal support of all 12 member states. I have no doubt that there are men of talent in each of the European countries—all 12 of them—who could perhaps serve as President of the Commission. It is not the nationality of the candidate that I consider relevant; it is the attributes that the candidate has.

Point of Order

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It arises out of Welsh questions when the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) referred to my constituency of Cynon Valley and the housing situation there. Not only did he not tell me beforehand that he would raise the matter; he also made a grossly misleading statement which I hope he will correct. He is not known for his courtesy in the House, but I hope that you, Madam Speaker, will point out to him the error of his ways.

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me to deal with. Of course, the hon. Lady can use the Order Paper—I am sure that she knows her way round it—by means of questions or an early-day motion in order to correct the statement.

BILL PRESENTED

PUBLIC CONVENIENCES (No. 2)

Mr. Jon Owen Jones, supported by Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Peter Viggers, Mr. Ian McCartney, Ms Jean Corston, Mrs. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Andrew Smith, Ms Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. Simon Hughes and Ms Liz Lynne, presented a Bill to secure a uniform provision of public lavatories by local authorities throughout the United Kingdom; to set certain minimum standards for such public lavatories; to require the provision of lavatories designed for persons with disabilities and the provision of nappy changing facilities; to make unlawful any discriminatory charging in respect of the use of local authority public lavatories; to make further provision in respect of turnstiles; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 1 July, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

FEES AND CHARGES

That the draft Seed Potatoes (Fees) (Scotland) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

That the draft European Molecular Biology Laboratory (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 96 (Scottish estimates),
That the Estimates set out hereunder be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:

Class XIV
Vote 7
Housing and environmental services, Scotland


Class XIV
Vote 8
Local environmental services and housing, Scotland.

Class XIV
Vote 13
Family health services (part), Scotland


Class XIV
Vote 14
Hospital, community health, family health (part) and other health services, Scotland.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Question agreed to.

Select Committees (Role)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. MacKay.]

[Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of Session 1989–90 (HC 19), on The Working of the Select Committee System, and the Government response (Cm. 1532.)]

Sir Terence Higgins: I greatly welcome this opportunity to debate the role of Select Committees. It is 15 years almost to the day—the actual anniversary was last weekend—since the House approved a motion for reforming its Select Committee system and establishing departmental Select Committees to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the various Government Departments.
At that time, Norman St. John-Stevas, who was much involved in these affairs, said that it could constitute the most important parliamentary reform of the century. While that may have seemed a little over the top at the time, none the less there is some justification for saying that it has made a substantial difference to our procedures, and in many ways has been a considerable success.
It is almost four years since the Select Committee on Procedure reported on the working of the Select Committee system. The House should be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and that Committee for the report which they produced after taking a great deal of evidence from all those who were concerned about these matters. The Government replied formally to the points raised in the Procedure Committee's report, but it is rather extraordinary that we have had to wait four years for an opportunity to debate it.
The Committee reached the conclusion that the departmental Committee system as a whole had proved itself a valuable and cost-effective addition to the House's ability to perform its proper function of holding Ministers to account. Certainly I believe that, in that respect, it has been a considerable success.
Looking back over the past 15 years to when the change was made and a new Administration came in under the then Mrs. Thatcher, it is strange to reflect that her most lasting contribution to political events may not have been the Falklands war or the miners' strike or even—in the light of what was said a few moments ago—her battles with various members of the EC, but the introduction of the departmental Select Committee system. That may be something of an irony, but nonetheless I think it is interesting.
I recall that some distinguished Members at the time—Michael Foot, Enoch Powell and others—said that we would draw attention away from the Floor of House were we to establish such a system. I do not believe that that has been the case. It is certainly the case that some Members have difficulty being both on the Floor of House and in Committee at the same time. The reality is that that there are no fewer than four Committees sitting at this moment whose Members are therefore unable to be with us this afternoon.

Mr. Giles Radice: I just wish to correct a factual mistake by the right hon. Gentleman. Enoch Powell was a member of the Select Committee of


1976 which proposed the system of departmental Select Committees and, while he took some persuading, he came out in favour of that. He was a supporter of that idea.

Sir Terence Higgins: Enoch Powell certainly was a supporter of the idea, but he had some qualms that it would affect the Floor of the House. I do not believe that that has been the case. The crucial thing is that the system has greatly improved the ability of the House to hold Ministers to account. For many years, power seemed to be shifting from the House of Commons towards the Executive. That was reversed.
We all know that, at Question Time on the Floor of the House—not least because the questions change from moment to moment—it can be very difficult to pin a Minister down. It is also very often the case that, during a winding-up speech, a Minister will have little difficulty in avoiding the more difficult questions which have been put to him. It is a different ball game in exchanges in front of a Select Committee, where a Minister can be questioned for two hours or more. If the Minister is clearly on weak ground, the Committee can make that clear.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can the right hon. Gentleman think of any examples off the top of his head when, on a crunch issue—an issue that really matters—a Minister has been held to account? I sat there when Leon Brittan, who has been much mentioned this afternoon, came before the Trade and Industry Select Committee on the crunch issue of Westland, and I realised how feeble the Select Committee' powers were.

Sir Terence Higgins: That is the exception which may prove the rule. The reality at that time was that it was difficult to pursue matters to a conclusion, and I think that that was an exception. In many other cases, it has been possible to pursue Ministers very effectively—not least, for example, on the Treasury Select Committee.

Mr. Frank Field: My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked for an example of someone being held to account, and Professor Joad would ask what we meant by "being held to account". It is noticeable that the person mentioned by my hon. Friend is not now a Member of this House.

Sir Terence Higgins: That may be the case.
May I also make an important point suggested during the rather excellent debate on procedure which we had only last week: that the House would be very different if it sat in a semi-circle, rather than in confrontation across the Floor of the House. I believe that current design of the Chamber is undoubtedly the right set-up. There is no doubt, however, that the semi-circular arrangement in Select Committees, where witnesses appear before an all-party group, has created an effective forum. That is especially clear, for example, on television.
It is also extraordinary that Select Committees seem to reach unanimous conclusions and publish unanimous reports, which never seems to happen on the Floor of the House. In the past 15 years, one of the undoubted strengths of the system has been the fact that Select Committees have published unanimous reports, across party lines. Those reports have correspondingly had a greater influence than would have been the case if those Committees had simply divided on party lines.

Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend also agree that it was extremely wise of the Select Committee on Broadcasting to insist that Select Committees, rather than merely the Chamber should be broadcast on television? As a result, although the public regard what goes on in the Chamber with some cynicism and contempt, they are greatly impressed by the work of those Select Committees.

Sir Terence Higgins: My hon. Friend has made a good point. In common with all hon. Members, I have received letters from constituents complaining about the behaviour during Prime Minister's Question Time, which is what most people watch on television. In contrast, I have received a number of letters from those who watch the affairs of Select Committees on television. They believe that those Committees provide a much more in-depth, civilised and sophisticated approach to dealing with political issues. That is extremely important to the standing of the House.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Will the right hon. Member give way?

Sir Terence Higgins: I shall gladly give way later.
Apart from holding Ministers to account, Select Committees have given officials a much higher profile than before. They are now subject to more stringent scrutiny than that which they may receive from their Ministers, who might be preoccupied with a great many other issues.
The role of the Liaison Select Committee—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the right hon. Member give way?

Sir Terence Higgins: Let me make a little progress, please.
The Liaison Select Committee normally meets in private and rarely publishes reports, so its work is not generally understood. It has the important role of co-ordinating the work of the various Select Committees and resolving difficulties between them.
I have had the privilege of chairing that Committee for seven years, and it is surprising to note that I have co-operated and worked with no fewer than six different Leaders of the House. I seem to have survived in my position rather better than they have. Every one of them has been a great supporter of the Select Committee system. On the whole, the interface between the Liaison Committee and Government has worked remarkably well. I have also enjoyed similarly successful discussions with and co-operation from the Opposition, which is important.
There are problems of co-ordination from time to time—for example, because of the overlap between the work of the Public Accounts Committee and a departmental committee, when covering the same ground. Problems have also arisen about getting information from the Government, particularly when it is classified or confidential. We have, however, worked out a reasonable modus vivendi.
I should like to comment, on an all-party basis, on the role of the Whips in Select Committees, which I believe should be limited. I recognise that, if we are to have a Government majority on each Committee, while ensuring that some of those Committees are chaired by Opposition Members, that can be achieved only by consultation through the usual channels.
That system has worked pretty well on the whole, but I


believe that, once the chairmanship of Committees has been agreed at the beginning of a Parliament—always a difficult task—the actual election of those Chairmen should be left to the Committees themselves. I have become concerned about the role of the Whips, for two reasons.
First, in the debate that took place on 13 July 1993, the view was clearly expressed that there was a rule that Committee Chairmen should not serve more than a certain length of time. I believe that there is no such rule, and that it was invented by the Select Committee on Selection at the time. It was absurd to suggest that such a rule applied only to one side of the House. I hope that we shall hear no more of that rule. On the other hand, we would not want to end up with a seniority rule such as exists in the United States.
I say all that with no personal interest, because I had already decided that I should not continue as Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee. I hope that a similar case, in which the hand of the Whips is clearly discernible, will not arise in future.
Similarly—as Chairman of an all-party Committee, it is appropriate that I be even-handed—I was deeply concerned about the events of recent months when restrictions on travel by the Opposition Whips inhibited Committees' work. That was totally counter-productive. Committees were not just prevented from travelling abroad, but the Education Committee, for example, was prevented from travelling around the country to visit schools. The Opposition's idea that that would annoy the Government was ridiculous. I hope that we can treat it as a one-off event. It is important that Committees established to serve the House should be able to operate in an uninhibited manner.

Mr. Faulds: In case my earlier "Hear, hears" were not recorded, I stand simply to put it on the record that I thought that the nonsense a few months ago was absolutely ridiculous, and typical of some of the rather raddled minds of the Whips. I strongly endorse the comments which the right hon. Gentleman has just made.

Sir Terence Higgins: It is clear from the expression on the face of the Opposition Whip that the hon. Gentleman's views have been duly noted.
May I say a word about overseas travel? Some of the comments that have appeared in the press are entirely misplaced. We operate on a budget which, compared to those of other countries, is extremely limited. The Liaison Committee seeks to deal with the matter stringently, so that we get value for money. In its report, the Procedure Committee suggested that there should be a sub-committee of non-travelling members on the Liaison Committee. At least we have moved some way in that direction.
I was originally elected as Chairman of the Liaison Committee because I was serving on that Committee and had a base, in that I was also Chairman of the Treasury Committee. In this Parliament, the view was taken that it was a conflict of interests if the Chairman of the Liaison Committee also held the chairmanship of another Committee. So it was decided that the Chairman of the Liaison Committee should not have a base Committee. That is the position in which I now find myself. It follows that I do not travel overseas with Select Committees, and can be impartial.
I strongly stress that travel proposals are examined stringently. Anyone who has been on one of those visits knows that they are hard work and of value to the Committees concerned.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. I have sat under his chairmanship and believe that he is an extremely impartial, hard-working and intelligent Chairman of the Liaison Committee.
Will he emphasise strongly that, despite its best endeavours, the Liaison Committee is so mean with Parliament's money that Select Committees have to rush across time zones with little respect for the work which they are supposed to carry out? I have been on Select Committees on three occasions when insufficient time was allowed to members physically to recover from the travel which they were expected to do. That is damaging, and I hope that it will be taken into account in future.

Sir Terence Higgins: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the commercial at the beginning of her intervention. Clearly we must strike a balance on those matters, and I hope that we do so as far as possible, taking account of the important point which she has just made.
The House may not be fully aware of an interesting development that has occurred largely at the initiative of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. It has carried out an experiment on so-called "video conferencing", whereby, instead of travelling overseas, a video conference links the Committee with witnesses abroad.
It raises some technical problems with regard to the evidence that is taken, the procedure of the House and questions of costs. None the less, we must examine it to see whether it enables Committees to take evidence from people overseas without the expense of them coming here, or the expense and time consumed by colleagues going overseas. That development may not commend itself to everyone, but it is well worth considering. We shall need to take careful account of the implications for the formal procedures of the House.
The other formal duty of the Liaison Committee concerns the selection of estimates days, of which we have three a year or, in practice now, six half days a year. I wish to disagree with the report of the Procedure Committee, because it suggested that those estimates days should be replaced by days for debate on Select Committee reports generally.
Estimates days are the only occasion when the House can debate the detail of public expenditure. They were introduced because the House was in an absurd position, with literally no opportunity to debate the detail of public expenditure. Although, to some extent, estimates days are a little artificial as, under Standing Orders, the House is allowed to debate only a reduction in public expenditure and not an increase, they provide an important opportunity for it to study the detail.
It is important that Committees' terms of reference say clearly that they are responsible for looking at the expenditure, policy and administration of the Departments concerned. No one who serves on Select Committees could doubt that the first of those items—expenditure—is not dealt with as thoroughly as the other two. The reason is largely technical. The form of the estimates is scanty, consisting of bare titles and figures, and Committees have found them difficult to assess.
Over the years, and since I left the Chair, the Treasury Committee has been assiduous in looking at the form of those estimates, and we have gradually seen the development of the departmental Select Committee reports, which incorporate much of the information that used to appear in the raw state in the estimates. Technically, it is important to have estimates days, but the new departmental reports provide Committees of the House with a real opportunity to study expenditure in a broader framework, and to deal with the merits of the case.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that, in proposing subjects for debate that were not concerned with the estimates, on a number of occasions Committees put in rather fallacious factors about estimates, so that they could come forward, on an estimates day, and have those debated? I do not disagree with my right hon. Friend about the need to ensure that estimates can be debated, but, equally, an important Select Committee report that is not concerned with estimates should not be ruled out from debate because it does not deal with estimates.

Sir Terence Higgins: I entirely take my right hon. Friend's point. I suggest that we retain the estimates days, but also have an opportunity each year for a certain number of debates on departmental reports and the expenditure described in them, on the basis of the reports from the various Select Committees. Perhaps, as with the estimates days, the choice of which reports to debate should be left to the Liaison Committee.
This year, a "unified Budget" has been introduced—but it is a myth. It is not really a unified Budget. We have always debated public expenditure and taxation together, in the autumn statement and during the Budget debate. Nothing has been gained in that respect. However, there has been a substantial reduction in the amount of time that the House has for debating economic affairs.
Instead of the autumn statement and the public expenditure White Paper in the spring, and the Budget running through until August, we are now down to a single event each year.
At the moment, we spend nearly all our time debating taxation, not public expenditure. With a unified Budget, insteadof having more debate on public expenditure and therefore bringing the two sides together, we now have even less time for debating public expenditure.
I say to the Leader of the House that there has been a considerable saving in Government time as a result of the so-called unified Budget. I believe that a reasonable amount of that time ought now to be allocated to the debates on the Select Committee reports on the public expenditure described in the annual reports of the Departments.
The third leg of this argument, which emerges very clearly from discussions in the Liaison Committee, is that time is needed to debate other Select Committee reports. Some Committees, such as the Defence Committee, have set opportunities during the year for doing so; the Treasury Committee also, although on the limited basis that have described, has a regular opportunity for doing so; many of the reports are "tagged", as the expression is, so that they can be used in debates on specific subjects, but still no regular time is available to debate the reports of Select Committees in general. We need a separate allocation for

that, which would reflect the growing importance of the Committees and the growing respect in which they are held.
I shall briefly mention one or two subjects before concluding—one, mentioned in the Procedure Committee report, concerns Standing Order No. 116 and the issue of advanced copies of reports. There have been some problems about that. I know that one of the Committees, whose Chairman is unable to be here this afternoon, is concerned about it. I hope that we could amend the Standing Order to two sitting days instead of 48 hours. That would enable Committees, in exceptional circumstances, not to publish reports before the weekend, but to release them on an embargo basis and publish them on the Monday. I hope that it will be possible to do that.
The Procedure Committee has dealt adequately with powers. Committees have very great powers to require the production of persons and papers, but those powers do not extend to the summoning of Members of this House or Members of the House of Lords. I think that that is right. The Procedure Committee rightly draws attention to the fact that, although there was a slight problem with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) some time ago, it is unlikely that anyone will refuse to give evidence if they are asked to do so by a Select Committee. The Government have adhered to their promise to ensure that Ministers do.
It is true that we may not summon Members of the House of Lords, although I was rather surprised at the comments of Lady Thatcher, who was invited recently to appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee, saying that she was not prepared to do so, as an ex-Prime Minister. She was entitled to say that she would not appear as a Member of the House of Lords, but to my knowledge no similar rule extends to ex-Prime Ministers. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and Lord Callaghan have, I think, appeared before Select Committees.

Mr. Ainger: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned accountability and the importance of the unanimity of reports, and now he has moved on to powers. Does he accept that it is important that topicality is also taken into account in specific reports, and that the Government respond to those reports in a reasonable time?
I mention that because the Transport Select Committee, of which I am not a member, published a report on search and rescue in west Wales and the Dover straits, and the evidence contained the information that a search-and-rescue facility would be withdrawn from my constituency on 1 July. That report, which recommended that the search-and-rescue facility was not withdrawn, was published on 29 March. The Transport Select Committee still has not received a response from the Government.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in such circumstances, powers should be given to the Select Committee to obtain a response in a reasonable time?

Sir Terence Higgins: A specific provision already exists, as I think the Leader of the House will confirm—a time limit in which the Government are required to respond. I have on occasion pursued the matter when it appears that that time limit is likely to be exceeded, but I shall happily inquire into the matter that the hon. Gentleman has rightly mentioned.
I shall make a point about the European Legislation Committee, which is a non-departmental Committee. Both it and the Public Accounts Committee in its traditional role, and especially its extended role with regard to value for money exercises, continue to serve a very important function. However, the position of the European Legislation Committee is extremely difficult. It considers about 800 to 1,000 Community documents a year, it recommends examination of about 300 to 400 a year that have legal or political importance, and it takes evidence on seven or eight every week from the Government.
In spite of the enormous efforts of this Committee, we must consider whether that is a satisfactory way to proceed. I have a hankering after the proposal that I made the previous time the subject was examined—that there is a case for the individual departmental Committees to have a Sub-Committee that considers European affairs.
The departmental Committees have the expertise, whereas the ad hoc Committees that meet in the morning move from subject to subject and have no serious expertise on the specific matters that are being discussed. It might be necessary to augment that Sub-Committee with volunteers who are specifically interested in European affairs. I hope that we may reconsider that proposal.
Finally, I make two arguments about the future. First, I have been deeply worried, as was the Procedure Committee, about the delay in establishing Committees at the beginning of a Parliament. The problem is that, at that crucial moment, no one in the House represents the interests of Select Committees. Therefore there is prolonged delay, not only while the Government are appointed—that takes place very quickly—and not only while the shadow Cabinet is appointed, but afterwards. The Procedure Committee report said that, on previous occasions, about one eighth of a whole Parliament had passed before the Committees were set up.
Before the next general election, we need to establish some mechanism for ensuring that that delay is not as prolonged as it has been in the past. However, I pay tribute to the present Leader of the House, who was extremely helpful in setting a record—but not a very good one—in getting the Committees set up after the most recent general election.
It is a real problem, because the staff are sitting doing nothing, the Committees are unable to proceed with the work, and the Government remain unscrutinised during that period. That is a very important issue, which we need to tackle very shortly, so that the mechanism is in place before the next general election, either by setting a specific time limit or making an arrangement about the time expiring after the shadow Cabinet and the Cabinet have been appointed.
I do not believe that our system will ever develop into the American system, as there is a fundamental difference between our two constitutions. We have a system in which the Executive comes from the legislature, which necessarily means that Select Committees cannot have effective functions in the same way as those in the American system.
I believe that the Committee system in its reformed state is a substantial improvement on the previous system. The amount of work done in Select Committees is not generally appreciated by the public at large, but it is valuable. We

need a firmer link between the Committees and the extent to which their reports can be debated on the Floor of the House. I hope that we can make further progress on that.

5 pm

Mr. Giles Radice: I was a member of the 1976 Procedure Committee which first proposed the establishment of a system of investigative departmentally related Select Committees. It is not revealing any secrets to say that our proposal was a compromise between those who merely wanted to keep the Expenditure Committee system—including Mr. Enoch Powell—and those of us, including Phillip Whitehead, who has just been elected as a European Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) and myself, who wanted a much more ambitious system.
Eventually, after a long debate and an all-day seminar session—in which we persuaded Mr. Powell that a departmentally related Select Committee system would merely draw out the implications of the Expenditure Committee system of the 1960s because that system included a series of Sub-Committees—we came up with the following ideas. We stated at the time:
a new balance must be struck, not by changes of a fundamental or revolutionary character in the formal powers of the institutions concerned, but by changes in practice of an evolutionary kind, following naturally from present practices.
That was a nod to Mr. Powell. We said:
We have approached our task not in the hope of making the job of government more comfortable, the weapons of Opposition more formidable, or the life of the backbencher more bearable, but with the aim of enabling the House as a whole to exercise effective control and stewardship over Ministers and the expanding bureaucracy of the modern state for which they are answerable, and to make the decisions of Parliament and Government more responsive to the wishes of the electorate.
We hoped that the investigative Committees would
become the 'eyes and ears' of the House in relation to Government departments, drawing the attention of Members to matters which require further political consideration and providing Members with advice and informed comment which can nourish the work of the House in scrutinising and criticising the activities and proposals of the Executive.
That was what we were trying to do.
We were fortunate to have as Leader of the House of Commons when the Thatcher Government first came to power, Norman St. John-Stevas. I am not certain that the then Prime Minister, now Lady Thatcher, knew what was happening when she set up the Select Committees. That system was very much the baby of Norman St. John-Stevas, who took the proposals of the Procedure Committee—I am sad to say that they had not been implemented by the Labour Government, partly because the then Leader' of the House, Michael Foot, was against the idea—and ran with the ball. As soon as the Conservative Government came to power he introduced the proposals.
Norman St. John-Stevas saw the new system as the most important parliamentary reform of the century. I think that that was going over the top. He implied that if departmentally related Select Committees were set up it would enable us to change the balance between Parliament and the Executive. I think that he had an inappropriate model in mind and thought in terms of the American committee system. As the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said, comparison with the United States of


America is inappropriate. There is a separation of powers in America, with a weaker party system; America operates in a different political framework.
When departmentally related Select Committees speak, Governments do not fall and Ministers do not resign.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Pity.

Mr. Radice: It is a pity perhaps, but that is the reality. But the Committees have been a success. They have become the focus for ideas, pressures and debate. If my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was still in his place I would have mentioned the good work that his Committee, the Select Committee on Social Security, has done on social security and, in a previous form, on the national health service. The hearings and reports of Select Committees influence the climate of opinion in the country.
As was mentioned by my right hon. Friend—I wanted to call him my right hon. Friend because he is my friend—the Member for Worthing, Select Committees help to call Ministers and civil servants to account. We do not expect them to resign, although occasionally they should have done so, but they come before us to answer a series of questions on their policies and decisions. The departmental Committees provide a good forum—a much more effective forum than the Floor of the House of Commons. In Question Time any Minister who is on form, well briefed and worth his or her salt will be able to answer questions on an issue as there will not be a sustained series of questions.
In a Select Committee, if a Minister has a serious problem and is asked a series of questions by a well-briefed member of a Select Committee, he or she will find it much more difficult to evade the question. If he or she does evade the question, it will be obvious that that is precisely what is being done and when, as at present, the proceedings are on television or radio, that can be telling. It is no accident that the 6 pm and 7 pm news often carry the proceedings of Select Committees as that is where Ministers let their guard drop for a moment or two and occasionally come out with information that is embarrassing to the Government.
I remember asking the present Chancellor of the Exchequer a series of questions on the impact of the Budget. I asked him whether it was not the case that if the two Budgets were put together the combined result would amount to 7p on the standard rate of tax and he said yes. I do not think that he would have said that on the Floor of the House of Commons, but he did so in the Select Committee. It was a revealing moment that was picked up by the popular press precisely because it was shown on television. In an odd way it helped people to realise that the Government had raised tax considerably. But if one listened to the Budget one would not have gained that impression. That shows how Select Committees—through the different format of the hearings—can influence debate in the country and the public's knowledge.
The departmentally related Select Committees are fortunate in having their own radio and television programmes. I have met people who have watched on television or listened on radio to those programmes, sometimes in their baths at 11 o'clock on a Sunday night, and who like to talk about them the next day—so we have our fans, and the programmes are clearly effective.
The point has also been rightly made that, in these Committees, an element of consensus can develop which is

impossible on the Floor of the House. Of course, it does not go very far; if there is a major policy difference between the two parties, it cannot be papered over in a Select Committee. But the very fact that the views of the parties can be rehearsed in a hearing represents a plus for Parliament. Indeed, sometimes the hearings are more important than the reports that we issue. That sometimes applies to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, when it is difficult to get a consensus—although the right hon. Member for Worthing would agree that our analyses are often better than those of the Treasury: they certainly stand the test of time better.
A word about reforms. I heartily agree that we need to protect the system against the party Whips. I do not want to go over history here, but the way in which a couple of Chairmen were leaned on and got rid of at the beginning of this Parliament was little short of scandalous. It is perhaps a pity that we took our retaliation—during the divisions between the two parties earlier this year—on the Select Committee system. I hope and am sure that that will not happen again.
It is fair to say that Government responses to Select Committee reports are sometimes so bland as to make them rather pointless. I have been looking at one or two Government responses to Treasury Select Committee reports, and they are good examples of what I mean. On the whole, Governments try not to take reports too seriously, particularly if they criticise the Government. Perhaps those reports need to be better linked with debates on the Floor of the House. Many years ago the Procedure Committee recommended eight such debates a year; we still have only three.
The development of the next steps agencies has not been fully taken into account by the Select Committee system. Now that nearly three quarters of all civil servants operate in agencies, the Select Committees must respond to that fact more effectively.
There may be a case in this for more specialist staff for the Committees. Hon. Members should remember that there is in fact no limit on the number of specialist staff that Committees can have. It is therefore up to us: if we see the need, we have to do something about it. A careful look should be taken at that.
My last point about the reforms concerns "the sending for persons and papers", in which area Select Committees have on a number of occasions been blocked by Government. The Westland affair was one occasion when Select Committees wanted certain members of the Executive to come before them but were blocked by the Prime Minister of the day. The problem was either that there was no majority on the Committee for insisting on attendance, or that the alternative meant coming to the Floor of the House, where the Government's majority would have come into play. So the power to send for persons and papers was inoperable.
In most cases, of course, Governments are prepared to accept Select Committees' demands, although the Osmotherly rules, drawn up by the Executive—without the support of Parliament—to govern how civil servants should operate before Select Committees, stipulate that civil servants appear to answer on behalf of Ministers, and only if Ministers want them to. There is a possible conflict between departmental Select Committees and Government Departments; it does not usually come into play, but it has done on occasion and it will again.
We therefore need to tighten up the rules in that area. Select Committees should not have to come to the Floor of the House to obtain their powers when they are challenged by Ministers or Governments. They should just be given full powers to send for persons and papers. That would give them the strength that they need when Governments try to resist them.
As an example of conflict that can arise between the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Government, I offer the fourth special report on the proposed attitude survey of the civil service. It might be thought sensible of the Committee to want to ascertain the views of civil servants before reporting on the future of the civil service. We have said that we do not believe that Sir Robin Butler, or the Minister, or the trade unions, can necessarily tell us the views of civil servants on a number of key issues—hence we needed to conduct a survey of attitudes.
We certainly realise that this is a delicate matter, and we have said that we are prepared to co-operate with the Government and to submit questions to them. Unfortunately, that offer has been rejected outright by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We have published his correspondence on the subject, which reads like a script from "Yes, Minister". It has certainly caused some laughter among Members of Parliament and journalists.
In the correspondence, the Chancellor argues that our questions are political, that they are concerned with Government policy, that they would help to politicise the civil service and that they would set a dangerous precedent. The Committee, with its Conservative majority, was united in disagreeing with that view. We said that the views of civil servants on the management matters that directly affect them are very different from matters of policy. And it is about the former that we want to ask questions, not about policy.
Secondly, we say that we are a responsible, cross-party Committee with a built-in Tory majority and with no interest in politicising the civil service. Thirdly, we point out that the Government, academics and trade unions have asked similar questions in the past. Sir Robin Butler says that he does not want outside bodies interfering in the relationship between him and the civil service. I pointed out in return that I did not think Parliament or its departmentally related Select Committees were just any old outside bodies. We represent the taxpayers; as such, we are perfectly entitled to find out the views of civil servants. That is what we have been trying to do, but we have been blocked.
Although we have issued a report, there is probably no way in which we can proceed to conduct an attitude survey at the moment. We could table a motion, but then we would draw into play the political majority on the Floor of the House, where other considerations also apply. That is why I have come out this evening in favour of giving the departmentally related Select Committees the power to send for persons and papers—precisely so that we can conduct an attitude survey of that type.
The reforms introduced by Norman St. John-Stevas and proposed by the Procedure Committee of 1976 have provided a useful additional and effective weapon for Parliament in the scrutiny of the Executive. All those who were involved in that should be congratulated, as should

hon. Members who do the work in the departmental Select Committees. On the whole, they do a good job. The Committees are one of the most hopeful features of this Parliament.
But it would be wrong to be complacent. We must consider ways in which the system can be reformed and in doing so we must remember that that is not just in the Government's hands, but in our hands, too.

Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) on bringing about this debate. The report on the working of the Select Committee system was published in the 1989–90 Session of Parliament, so I hope that we are not returning to the old structure of delayed debates on Committee reports which I thought that we had improved. Indeed, I recently congratulated my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on holding a debate fairly quickly after the publication of the Procedure Committee's most recent report.
I also thank my right hon. Friend for apologising to the House on my behalf for my absence during a debate on a procedural matter a week ago. The debate was announced only on the previous Thursday, when I was already on my way to the far east to represent Parliament in a certain matter. I wrote to both my right hon. Friend and to the Liberal Democrats, who initiated that debate, apologising for my absence.
The creation and the working of the departmental Select Committees have been a considerable success. That success is absolute and definite and no one can deny it. At no time before their creation could Back-Bench Members have a Minister or senior official sitting in front of them answering questions solidly for two and a half hours, if necessary, on the subjects for which that Minister or official was directly responsible. It is not like Question Time, when a Minister has to respond to only two or three supplementary questions. If a Select Committee is doing its job properly, it can persevere until it either obtains an answer or shows up the inadequacy of the Minister in dealing with the matter before the Committee.
Perhaps even more important—although this is not always accepted and has not yet been mentioned in the debate—is the fact that any Secretary of State will say that his Department is now much more aware that its actions or the actions of its Ministers are liable to be open to the closest parliamentary scrutiny in way that has never previously been the case. Therefore, Departments are much more acutely aware of acting in ways that are acceptable to Parliament and do not run the risk of appearing to ride roughshod over parliamentary restrictions or opinions. That is of considerable importance.
The Select Committees have been successful, but can they be improved? The answer must be yes. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has made some suggestions for achieving that. I want to make three suggestions. The work rate of some Committees could be improved. Perhaps they could consider more than one subject at a time. I accept the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing that the financial spend of Departments should be more closely examined. Often, that is not a popular thing for the Committees to do; it is not as sexy as a political or policy inquiry. However, it is


important that Chairmen look more closely at how they examine the estimates of the Departments that they are monitoring.
On administration and policy, it is important that Select Committees follow up their reports to determine how, and in what manner, the Government have reacted. Once a Committee receives the Government's response, it should look at the matter again, not just let it die as though it did not matter any more.
The 1989–90 report was extensive, running to 80 or 90 pages, and extensive evidence was taken. For students of history, it is important to recognise the closeness of the examination. It is of interest that one of the major factors was the unanimous view of the Committee that Select Committees should not be turned into something akin to the American congressional investigatory committees, usually staffed and run by young lawyers and ambitious research assistants out to establish their reputations. The view of the Procedure Committee was that our Select Committees should be dominated by Members of this House and that their effectiveness should be assisted by the proven excellence of the Clerks in the Clerks Department and by the Committee's ability to call on specialist advisers when necessary.
I must point out to the hon. Member for Durham, North that there is no restriction on the number of advisers or experts on whom the Committee can call for assistance if it thinks that to be necessary. However, they do not have to be a permanent staff. There need not be a build-up of people permanently on the payroll. Paragraph 93 of the report said about additional staff:
present staffing levels are probably about right…and I fear that if we had more staff our inquiries might become staff-driven rather than being Member-driven as they are at present.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about not having excessively large staffs, but it is also important that the Clerks Department should be given proper weight when delegations go abroad. The Clerks are absolutely essential to the taking of evidence and the recording of minutes. I want to follow up a point that I made previously and emphasise that it would be quite wrong if, for any reason, delegations were allowed the services of only one Clerk. That would be quite unfair on a 10-day visit. It would also be counter-productive.

Sir Peter Emery: I respect the hon. Lady's views, but I am diametrically opposed to them. I believe that unless a Committee divides into two parts and therefore must have a Clerk to deal with each of those parts, it is quite possible for one Clerk to deal with a Select Committee. After all, he should not have to nurse hon. Members; they are adults who should be able to look after their own arrangements. They should not have to rely on being herded around by a Clerk. They should be responsible enough to be on parade when they are meant to be. My judgment is that, in the spending of money, one Clerk will do in most instances—but that view is not unanimously held by the members of the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing.
Paragraph 162 states:
There is little or no demand from Select Committees for any increase in their powers to send for persons, papers and records.
That view was held by almost every Chairman that we interviewed.
I noted with interest the point made by the hon. Member

for Durham, North—and it is nice that we can begin debating matters, which is not always the case. However, the Government must have some protection, to be able to ensure that their view can be heard and perhaps accepted. I urge the hon. Member for Durham, North and his Committee to table a motion to be considered on the Floor of the House. It may be that the Government, rather than debate the matter in full, would give way. There are different ways of applying pressure. The structure that we set goes further than perhaps the hon. Gentleman imagines, in the way that he interpreted the position in his arguments.

Mr. Radice: That is probably good advice, and I will communicate it to the Chairman of my Committee. It may influence him and other members of the Committee in future. I say only that it is problematic. The right hon. Gentleman implied that Select Committees will go in for irresponsible surveys that have no purpose or point other than to embarrass the Government. I am sure that that is not the case. It has not been my experience as a member of Select Committees over a long period and as someone who entered the House many years ago. It is about time that we trusted the parliamentary side with a little more responsibility. If we do not, we will be blocked if we try to extend its power and influence.

Sir Peter Emery: This is the first time in 14 years that such a matter has arisen. The last occasion was the Westland affair—but that was different, in that the witnesses were blocking the way. Both the Ministers called blocked the situation. It was not so much the Committee's inability to get papers as the inability to break down the defence that two different Ministers were making.
Certain important recommendations made by my Committee in 1989–90 have been implemented, for which I thank the Government. We recommended that the Health and Social Security Select Committee should be divided with the splitting up of the Department of Health and Social Security. We insisted that there should be a Scottish Affairs Select Committee. That took some time, but it eventually came about in 1992. We pressed for a joint committee with the other place or a sub-committee on science and technology, and we now have a Select Committee dealing with that subject.
We also ensured that when new Departments are established, a Select Committee is created—as happened with the Select Committee on National Heritage. We also insisted and insisted and insisted that there should be a Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, which was the last of our recommendations to be adopted.
Procedurally, exchanges of evidence between the Public Accounts Committee and departmental Select Committees, which were something new, have been accepted, and Standing Orders Nos. 122 and 130 were amended to allow Select Committees to call on the Comptroller and Auditor General. Select Committees had not fully considered the use that they could make of the CAG in their work.
The recommendation that the remit of the Home Affairs Select Committee should include the work of the Law Officers' Departments was also adopted, as was the proposal for a maximum of one hour's debate on motions to replace Committee members, with the amendment of Standing Order No. 14. I give those as examples of the Government working to meet the Select Committee's


recommendations. I thank them for that, despite my criticisms of the Government for not debating the issue for some time.
I draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council three recommendations that were not adopted. The first has already been mentioned. We recommended that the embargo on the publication of reports under Standing Order No. 116 should be amended from 48 hours to two sitting days, which would allow for the weekend factor. That is still a problem and, after close consideration, I do not believe that the Government's objection to that proposal stands up.
Secondly, I said earlier that departmental Select Committees should be able to ascertain cases to take up in respect of the National Audit Office. The Government did not object, but that recommendation does not seem to have been adopted.
Thirdly, the Committee urged greater use of a Special Standing Committee on Bills, which has not happened. I hold the Government to blame for not dealing with that matter. Every Minister who has piloted a Bill that passed through a Special Standing Committee—there is evidence of this in our report—said without exception that it greatly helped. The Whips' concept that such a procedure automatically delays the Standing Committee was negated by evidence from Ministers, including that from one well-respected Secretary of State in the present Government.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: That is one of the report's most important and valuable recommendations. If it helps the right hon. Gentleman's case, we would be willing to consider timetabling to make such arrangements work.

Sir Peter Emery: I must consider the hon. Gentleman's exact words, but that sounds like a major step forward. I am delighted to hear that from a member of the Labour Front-Bench team because that proposal would not hurt the Government but would help Parliament. It would certainly help outside bodies to know that their evidence would be fully and properly put to a Select Committee.
The report's general conclusion is that Select Committees work effectively and are most efficient when there is no strong political division on the matter under consideration. Select Committees and their reports are of most use and influence when they reach unanimous conclusions. When a conclusion embraces all political opinions, that has a considerable effect on the Government, who must take note of what is said. Most Committee Chairmen realise that inquiring into a politically motivated subject does not get anywhere, because that is not the best way to proceed.
What really interests me is the fact that the vast majority of reports from departmental Select Committees have been unanimous. The House can work in unity, although the press often suggests otherwise, and what the television cameras show at Prime Minister's Question Time makes nonsense of the idea. When hon. Members are giving serious consideration to important subjects in Select Committees, they are able to reach a unanimous view: that is the strength of Select Committees and of our political system. Select Committees hold the Executive to account, which is what Parliament is here to do.

Mr. Richard Caborn: It could be said that a little local difficulty in the Select Committee on Trade and Industry precipitated this debate: some of the views expressed to the Liaison Committee on its behalf probably gave rise to the need for such a debate on the Floor of the House.
Unfortunately, I am not as well prepared as I should be. The Select Committee returned at the weekend from a visit to South Africa; when I left on the previous Friday, my Whip told me that there was a three-line Whip tonight—not on this subject—but when I arrived home, I found that the Committee Clerk had sent me a note asking me to come down this afternoon to take part in the debate. In any event, I wish to raise some points of principle.
In October 1992—for the first time ever, I believe—a motion was tabled asking for a report to be prepared by a Select Committee on the closure of 31 pits in the United Kingdom. That was a politically charged debate; the Government made something of a concession in requesting the Select Committee to deliver a report to the House—they did not ask for a referral. It is important that Select Committees are not brought into disrepute and used by Governments as safety valves to resolve politically charged situations, but I think that that is what happened then.
When we presented the report with its 31 recommendations, those recommendations were carried nem con. I had approached the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, the Leader of the House and the President of the Board of Trade, asking not only for the report to be debated on the Floor of the House—which it was—but for the recommendations to be voted on. Unfortunately, that did not happen: although the Chairman of the Liaison Committee made strong representations to the Leader of the House, he was unable to secure the necessary time.
That would have been possible only if the Government had allowed a procedural motion, enabling you, Madam Speaker, to select not just one but two or even three amendments to the motion relating to the White Paper and the Committee's report.
Two inquiries were running simultaneously at that time. The Select Committee's inquiry was transparent, in that some 97 per cent. of the evidence received was in the public domain: I believe that the taking of evidence was televised extensively. Also in progress was the Government's inquiry into the closure of the pits, which took place in camera—although some of the evidence emerged via the Select Committee. The reports were debated, but we were not allowed to vote on the Select Committee's recommendations. Try as I might, I—as the Committee's Chairman—was unable to bring that about.
It was a disappointment. The Government should not table a motion requesting a Select Committee to conduct an inquiry and compile a report, and then deny the House the right to vote on the Committee's recommendations. I accept what the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said about general debate on estimates, and the tabling today of a motion allowing a special debate on Select Committees; but I think that we should also consider Select Committee recommendations. We should explore the possibilities, and consider whether it is best for us to engage in debates such as this on a motion for the Adjournment, or to have the right to vote on such recommendations.
I agree with a number of hon. Members who have spoken that the strength of Select Committees is unanimity of purpose: without that, the system would fail. A few weeks ago, during a discussion on the subject, someone observed to me that Select Committees provided the only opportunity for consensus politics in our adversarial system. I accept that such a system is probably right for the United Kingdom, but it should contain a little island of consensus politics.
Why was a Select Committee containing a Government majority able to reach a certain decision on a controversial issue such as the closure of those 31 pits? Partly, I believe, because when evidence is subject to scrutiny an argument becomes compelling. Although political dogma will come into play from time to time, a logical consensus will be reached by people who sit in a Committee for two or three months, taking evidence twice a week, with all the evidence and the background before them.
As an eminent person who is now in the House of Lords said to me, had the poll tax—among other major issues—been subjected to the same process, a saner view might have prevailed, and the tax might never have been introduced.
As I have said, it is wrong for Governments to do what I believe the Government did at the time of the coal inquiry, and use Select Committees as safety valves to defuse politically charged situations before a proper debate can take place.
It was unfortunate that the Chairman of the Liaison Committee mentioned video conferencing immediately after he had spoken about Select Committee visits. My report to the Committee was very carefully worded. I hope that the Committee will consider the matter, and that the Leader of the House will also take it on board.
Using new technology, the inquiry into fibre-optics was able to take evidence from two high-ranking Americans that we could not have obtained without video conferencing. We should consider such facilities for the House, especially in view of our position in the European Union: I understand that Brussels has them. Perhaps they could be installed in Parliament street, where the new developments are taking place. We could use such state-of-the-art technology for a number of purposes, not just in Select Committees. I am sure that the excellent evidence that we have obtained from our two American witnesses will have made our report more authoritative.
My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) raised an interesting point about the development of next steps agencies and quangos. A number of people have expressed concern about the continued removal of powers from the House, because—as my hon. Friend pointed out—of the number of civil servants who are employed by agencies.
A review similar to that suggested in the 1989–90 Procedure Committee report, should be conducted of the future role of Select Committees in, for example, the procedure outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and video conferencing. It should consider the scrutiny of appointments. If we are to continue to take powers from the House and give them to unelected quangos, the eyes and ears of the House should examine appointments before they are made. It has been alleged that appointments are becoming increasingly political. Whichever party is in office, I do not believe that political appointments are good for the democratic process.
Select Committees should review how this place and the

Executive evolve. The report that we are now debating is some five years old, which shows the need to ensure that Select Committees are up to date, are in tune with current thinking and are fully scrutinising the Executive. The terms of reference of the next review should not be as wide as those for the 1989–90 report, which stated that the system was evolutionary and should be monitored from time to time to ensure that it was working well.
I apologise for the fact that, because I promised to meet some people at half-past six, I may not be here for the Minister's winding-up speech.

Sir Anthony Grant: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), not only because I agreed with much of what he said but because it gives me the opportunity to say that he has been a wise, sensible and thoughtful Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. I was delighted to serve under him—and long may I do so.
A great consensus is growing in this Chamber. I am in considerable agreement with everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said, except for one point, which I shall deal with shortly.
Last week, Madam Speaker uttered a little homily on the way in which questions should be expressed to the Prime Minister. Obviously, she recognised that, over the years, Prime Minister's Question Time has descended into a pantomime farce. She referred to the proper way in which to obtain information from the Government—which I fear was the triumph of hope over experience.
For years, Question Time has not extracted a scintilla of information from the Government, whichever party has been in office. As a humble Minister, I found it the easiest thing in the world to avoid giving any revealing answers at Question Time. If the Government wanted to publicise something, the written parliamentary answer was a useful medium.
The adversarial atmosphere of the Chamber bears little relevance to the search for information. There may have been a time many years ago when Question Time and debates afforded some scrutiny of the Executive, but that was when there were fewer and more independent Members, and much looser party ties. Alas, the Chamber has become more and more show business and a source of copy for local press and media.
We should consider the Select Committee system in that context. In 1979, I had some doubts when Select Committees were introduced by Lord St. John of Fawsley. I was impressed by the romantic view of the Chamber held by Enoch Powell, Michael Foot and, I believe, Lord Whitelaw. Having served on three Select Committees, I am convinced that they are the only way forward in terms of scrutiny and restraining the increasingly all-powerful Executive.
Select Committees have done something to arrest the decline in the public's esteem for Parliament. I sat on the Broadcasting Select Committee, which saw through the introduction of television into Parliament. As I pointed out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, that Committee wisely insisted that the media were not only to concentrate on Prime Minister's Question Time and idiotic occurrences in the Chamber but to give a broad picture of the House and to broadcast Select Committees.
I have been struck by public's comments about Select Committees. They said, "In the Chamber, you looked exactly as we expected you to look when we heard you yelling and bawling on radio." But they were amazed and impressed by Select Committees, saying that they had never thought that hon. Members could behave so well and so sensibly. They had not realised that hon. Members could call to account Ministers, civil servants and bureaucrats in Select Committees, which is not possible in the Chamber.
That was a distinct plus for the Select Committee system and for Parliament. We must consider Parliament as a whole and do our best to raise our esteem in the eyes of the public.
One can take two views of Select Committees: first, that they are a useful means of keeping restless or idle Members out of mischief and harm's way—that is probably the establishment view—and, secondly, the better view, that they are the only means under our constitution of properly scrutinising the Executive.
If that system is to be improved and built on, a few suggestions should be borne in mind, some of which have already been referred to. First, more powers should be available to Select Committees.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central referred to our great work—it was three months' hard labour as far as I was concerned—on the pit closure report. We conducted the most vigorous internal debates before we agreed on the final report. Good God, we went away for drinks, came back and got in a huddle. It was 11 o'clock at night, after all-day activity, before we came finally to the virtually unanimous conclusion. As the hon. Member said, that is a valuable aspect of Select Committee work.
If Select Committees are to continue to develop, they must be properly supported. I contrast our system with the back-up system in the United States of America. I agree that we should not copy the United States system, but the back-up there is substantially greater.
I agree that the question of the Clerks must be considered. With respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), I am slightly more impressed by the arguments of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) than by his. Clerks are often overworked, particularly on overseas visits, where they have a tremendous amount of work.
I believe that there is too much cheeseparing—this is typically British—or spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. It is important that members of Select Committees should go abroad. We should not have to worry about the media complaining about it—they travel abroad at the drop of a hat, and do so first class on Concorde, with huge expense accounts. We need to ensure that the job is done properly. If the job is worth doing, it is worth doing well, which means looking carefully at the back-up provided.
Secondly, the House should have adequate time to consider reports. It simply will not do to undertake work in immense detail, with Clerks, experts and Members of Parliament sitting all hours only for a report tamely to run into the sand. The procedure should be reformed, although I do not know how it should be carried out. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will pursue the matter to ensure that we can insist that Select Committee reports get proper and adequate consideration on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real difficulty is that, the more effective a Select Committee report is, especially if the Committee has analysed and scrutinised matters such as Government expenditure programmes, the less welcome it is to the Executive? There is a real difficulty in ensuring that the reports that most need to be debated are given time. We could end up with many debates on the innocuous reports and no time for debates on the difficult ones.

Sir Anthony Grant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I shall say a word or two about that in a moment.

Sir Peter Emery: Our hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is not right. The decision on what should be debated is left to the Liaison Committee. An application is made to the Liaison Committee, which then decides, once the time is allocated, which reports will be debated. It is nothing to do with whether the Government wish to restrict time on a report. It is right to have that clearly understood.

Sir Anthony Grant: In that case, I shall direct my remarks away from the Treasury Bench and entirely to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), who I hope will consider carefully the need to give adequate time to our reports.
Thirdly, the Committees should be properly constructed. They should be drawn from a broad base of knowledge, experience and enthusiasm. I believe that too many hon. Members are excluded. Perhaps too many Front-Bench Members are excluded; that is for the Opposition to say. There may be too many Front-Bench Members. Too many people may be involved in party committees who do not seem to qualify.
I believe that there are far too many Parliamentary Private Secretaries. We seemed to get on perfectly well with half the number when I first came into the House, but we are now knee-deep in them. If we had fewer, they would be able to perform a useful function on Select Committees; many of them are excellent people.
I now come to the one point on which I differ slightly from my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing—the chairmanship, which is always a difficulty. A case could be made for the senior Member to take the Chair, as happens in the United States. That should not, of course, happen if he is ga-ga. We can all point to examples of that.

Sir Peter Emery: Is my hon. Friend looking at himself?

Sir Anthony Grant: I was not looking at anyone except you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In normal circumstances, there is a case to be made for the senior Member taking the Chair. That would avoid a great deal of party chicanery, bickering and ill-feeling.
Above all—here I come to the most important point, which has already been stressed—there should be the minimum of interference in the work of Select Committees by the Government or by the Opposition establishment through the usual channels. Other hon. Members have referred to Enoch Powell. He said that the usual channels and the Whips Offices performed the same functions as sewers; they are essential. However, the activities of the usual channels should be kept as far away as possible from Select Committees.
There are many Select Committees apart from departmental ones. The members of those Committees are directly appointed by the Executive. There is the Select


Committee on Procedure, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), whom the Government wisely chose. There are the Select Committees on Members' Interests, on Privilege and on Administration. There are a range of Committees in which the Government have a very direct say, so the less say they have in the setting up of the departmental Select Committees, the better.
I cite two examples, which have probably been referred to, of bad interference by the Executive during this Parliament. At the start of this Parliament, there was deplorable confusion, and there was a conspiracy over chairmanships. That caused great annoyance to hon. Members on both sides and to me; many people were very irritated. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing said, a rather spurious doctrine was enunciated about the length of time people could serve as Chairmen. It was a tiresome and tedious time, and what happened was wrong.
The second example which happened this year—the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) will know about this—was the blocking of a visit by the Trade and Industry Select Committee to South Africa. We were doing a report on trade with South Africa, and it was ludicrous to suppose that we could conclude our report without actually going to the new South Africa. The visit was blocked by the Opposition establishment during the non-co-operation war.
That was absolutely wrong. Party political rows between Front-Bench Members or anyone else in the Chamber should not block the work that Select Committees need to do to produce their reports. We should be ever vigilant to ensure that such incidents are not allowed to happen again.
All who believe, as I do, in parliamentary democracy, and who believe that it is fundamental not only to our constitution, but to our freedom, should unite and be determined to enhance and strengthen the Select Committee system—which is undoubtedly here to stay.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge, South-West (Sir A. Grant). I agree with almost all his comments. I certainly agree with his comment about the all-party nature of the Select Committees; I have found that to be a tremendous strength.
The Welsh Affairs Select Committee was the only Committee in the previous Parliament which did not have a Government majority. In this Parliament, the Government have been unable to ensure that every member of the Committee represents a Welsh constituency. If the choice was between retaining the Committee and abolishing it, we would be willing to pay that price. I am in the 11th year of my chairmanship of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. I am therefore especially pleased that I am an Opposition rather than a Conservative Member in terms of security of tenure.
I intend to make a few points about the role of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. I appreciate that its features are not common to all the Select Committees. The post of the Secretary of State for Wales encompasses a wide range of responsibilities, although it does not include the major responsibilities of defence, foreign affairs and the police.
The first thing that we try to do is to involve as many people as possible in giving written evidence. The gap between power and people can become wide. We believe that it is important that as many individuals and groups as possible feel that what they have to say about their experience will be listened to by the Select Committee.
Our next inquiry will be into the rehabilitation of those with serious head injuries. National organisations such as Headway—the National Head Injuries Association—and the Carers National Association will, of course, give evidence, as will the Department of Health, the Welsh Office and other significant players in the field. However, it is important that individuals who have gone through the trauma of, for example, being involved in a serious motorway car accident, being taken to a trauma unit and taking many years to recover from that horrible experience—and their families—can write to the Select Committee to say what their experience has been. They will be able to feel that they are participating.
I find such participation especially valuable when we take oral evidence in the Principality, which we do as often as we can. When, for example, the sea wall at Towyn broke and many hundreds of families were made homeless, it was a superb experience to be able to take evidence in Towyn so that the people who had been affected could see what we were doing in taking evidence and then publishing our report, after which the Government would publish their response.
Secondly, certainly in a Select Committee of our kind, the micro-level of analysis is especially significant. From my experience, it is easy for a Government Department, with its army of civil servants, to be able to duck and dive, and weave all kinds of cul-de-sacs for Select Committees to go down. However, if that Select Committee is operating at the micro-level, it is virtually impossible for the Government to follow it down the path that it takes. I shall give a couple of examples.
In 1983, the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office issued waste management paper No. 25 on clinical waste incineration. That document was in existence until 1990, when the Welsh Affairs Select Committee looked at toxic waste disposal in Wales. We discovered that the health authorities were not especially quick in responding to requests for information on their incinerators, so the Committee sent them a questionnaire to attain information on every clinical waste incinerator in the Principality, including questions on what the temperature was to be in the main burner and in the after-burner, what scrubbing facilities they had and so on.
When we then asked the health authorities—every one of them—to appear before us in the House and they came, we were amazed to discover in January 1990 that only three of them had ever heard of waste management paper No. 25. Indeed, those three had only discovered its existence two weeks previously, when we had asked them to come up here and pay us a visit. We asked the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment what had happened, to be told that, unfortunately, the document had not been issued to the relevant pollution bodies in England or in Wales—the health authorities at that time—but had been sent to every district authority in England and Wales, which had no responsibility whatever for that form of air pollution.
The response was wonderful. Of course, it was not from the Secretary of State for Wales. He delegated that responsibility to a clerk in the Welsh Office. When the


letter came back—it was published, of course, as an appendix to our report—it contained a wonderful sentence, referring to why the wrongful issuing had occurred, along the lines that, with the given level of hindsight, it was impossible to know what went wrong, but it was reissuing waste management paper No. 25 and that this time it was being sent to the bodies in England and Wales which were responsible for monitoring the emissions from clinical hospital waste incineration. Only at that micro-level of considering every incinerator were we able to identify such a matter.
The second example is to do with local authorities and their relationship with the Welsh Office over rural housing in Wales. We decided to ask every local authority for information on the number of houses that had been given planning permission in the open countryside in Wales which were departures from and contrary to local and county structure plans and Welsh Office planning policy guidelines.
We were so shocked by the results of the questionnaire that we looked back a few years before that date and followed up what had been happening with six of those authorities. We found that hundreds of houses in the Welsh countryside had been given planning permission contrary to Welsh Office guidance and the respective county structure plans. When we asked the Welsh Office about that, it found it rather astonishing and representatives from various councils were summoned to London to meet the Under-Secretary of State at the Welsh Office to try to explain why particular houses had been given permission against the structure plan. The experience in north Cornwall was certainly salutary because it came at the right time.
When the Select Committee pays visits, certainly in the Principality, I have found it worth while never to tell the people whose premises we are looking at that we are coming. Whereas advance notice is convenient for them, it is especially inconvenient for us because it enables what we want to see to be easily concealed. I shall never forget the time that one of Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution started to come round Wales with us when we looked at landfill sites in the Principality. We were astonished to find that those sites could have been pleasure camps for any recreational form of sport or whatever, so clean were they, so seagull-free and without a whiff of any odour of any kind. However, when we decided to ask the inspector to return home and we continued our journey without visiting the sites which had been planned, the story was rather different. Therefore, it is well worth while not to turn up when the red carpet is laid out, but to turn up unannounced and see what is really going on.
The fourth rule of Select Committees is about informing people of what is available to them when we consider particular topics. We astonished the people of Wales when we considered treatment centres. They do not exist in England, but are unique national health service facilities in the Principality. If any person has been waiting for more than four months for in-patient surgery on cataracts, major joints, or hernias and varicose veins, they may be admitted not only to their local hospital, but to one of the treatment centres, which provide a marvellous facility for elective surgery. We were able to educate and train doctors because

they seemed to be especially slow in knowing about the existence of the centres and, therefore, patients were being denied access to them.
Fifthly, Select Committees are useful as a method of educating hon. Members who serve on them. We have no in-training facilities in the House, no retraining facilities, and no way in which to keep us up to date, in detail, of what is going on. We tend to be cocooned in this establishment and the usual channels try to keep us here as long as possible. It is no disgrace at all to admit that it is of enormous benefit for those of us who serve on Select Committees to be aware in depth of what is going on in the subject areas which we consider.
Sixthly, it is important that Select Committees pay more attention to Government responses. It is fine to spend months looking in detail at a topic, to feel some sort of enormous relief to reach the end of an inquiry, to have written the report, for—one hopes—unanimous agreement to have been reached, for the report to be dispatched and to be waiting for the Government to respond. Then the response is filed and no more is heard on the issue until we want to examine it again. It would be useful for the Select Committee to examine the Government on that response. The Minister could be asked back to the Committee and questioned in detail on why this or that recommendation was not accepted. That could be a way forward.
Lastly—I do not think that the Leader of the House is in a position to accept this readily—in terms of open government, it would be rather nice if Select Committees could spend the occasional day or, pushing it, the occasional week, nosing around the Departments that they monitor. The Welsh Select Committee could spend a week in the Welsh Office in Cardiff. Members of the Committee could roam round the Department finding out how it works at first hand and prodding here and there into files to see what is the ambience of the Department.
I get the impression that Governments are not too happy when a Select Committee starts walking around the Department that it is supposed to monitor. Although it may be a little early for the Leader of the House to make such a decision, I would certainly welcome an arrangement whereby we could enter the hallowed places of knowledge to mix with civil servants without some watchful eye behind us ensuring that we do not talk to the wrong person in case we find out things that are a little embarrassing for us to know.
With those few comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to make this speech. The Select Committee system is superb. Without it, I would have long left this place because, as many hon. Members who have spoken before me have said, it gets rid of the adversarial element and allows us to look objectively as best we can at the evidence before us and constructively to move the debate forward. We do so in the hope that, if the Government accept some of our constructive recommendations, the quality of life and the decisions of the Government will be improved for the benefit of us all.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The debate has enabled us to pause, even for just two and a half hours, and take stock of the achievements of the departmental Select Committee system and to assess its value to good government and


parliamentary activity. It has allowed us to assess the extent to which it commands the interest and, to a greater degree, the confidence of the public.
Perhaps the most obvious advantage of the Select Committee system has been manifest today. The House is at its best, it is always said, when we are not too adversarial, everyone agrees with everyone else and, if disagreement forces itself upon us, we respond only in the most civilised and well-mannered way. As a result, I am sure that this debate will not feature on either the 9 o'clock or the 10 o'clock news later today.
I was a member of the old-style Select Committee, which was all things to all Departments. I was on the sub-committee of the Social Services and Employment Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee under the leadership of Mrs. Renee Short. In one period, we reported on preventive medicine, juvenile crime and unemployment. As hon. Members will realise, that spread our expertise so wide as probably to be of little use to anyone. I am sure that the departmental Select Committee system that we have now is a decided improvement on that.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), who is a most worthy, diligent and effective Chairman of the Liaison Committee and Select Committee Chairman, that the record of departmental Select Committees is considerable and well justifies their creation. I agree that they hold Ministers to account effectively and that they keep civil servants on their toes. A civil servant never knows when he or she might be called to account personally for his or her work.
Select Committees inform Parliament of the important evidence available on subjects of current importance. The Home Affairs Select Committee has taken up raging issues such as legal aid and violence on video at the very moment when they have raged. As the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), the Chairman of the Welsh Select Committee, said, the Select Committees ensure that we become experts and therefore much more able to make the work that we do in Parliament credible.
Lastly, Select Committees come to conclusions which influence Government, as I hope that the Home Affairs Select report published this week on racial attacks and harassment will do before the Government conclude the proceedings on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.
I would go further and suggest that in the public eye, now that television is with us and has highlighted the knockabout of politics, the Select Committee system may be seen as one of the saving graces of Parliament itself. The public, who might otherwise be led to believe that this place is a madhouse of shouting, ranting, cantankerous, unobjective noisemongers, can see that Parliament is much more than that. I understand from the television operators that there is a surprisingly high level of viewing of programmes based on Select Committee activity. In short, the Select Committees have raised the standard of Parliament higher in the estimation of the people we represent. That is a thoroughly good thing.
To go even further, in a world in which nations are emerging into the daylight of democracy, the example of this Parliament, both good and bad, may have some effect in influencing the structure of new parliamentary democracies and in helping to reform democracies of longer standing. My American friends tell me that they sit glued to their armchairs with their popcorn while they watch what happens in this place, not only at Prime Minister's Question Time. Certainly, the departmental

Select Committees have been the subject of great interest among visiting democratic Parliaments as they have emerged from communism or wherever. That is another source of pride for the system.
I shall not take up the time of the House by commenting on the procedural points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and other colleagues, save to say that I agree with most of them and that the strengthening that has been called for is likely to improve the working of the system even further. However, I would add that there are some rather silly rules that we could well get rid of, particularly those relating to broadcasting.
Last week, the Home Affairs Select Committee visited the offices of the British Board of Film Classification. The hon. Member for Gower will note that we go out into the hallowed precincts of agencies and Government Departments. While we were there, we discovered that although the proceedings were public, they could not be televised because there was only one instead of two cameras in a fixed position. That afternoon we held a press conference upstairs here in the House. It could not be televised even in a room with two fixed cameras approved for the televising of the proceedings of Parliament because it was not a formal meeting of the Committee. I hope that common sense will prevail in such matters when the procedures come to be reviewed, as they are clearly absurd.
I wish to raise one other matter which I hope will be considered for the future. It is a matter of some substance and importance and would take our Select Committee system into a completely new area. One of the agencies with which the Home Affairs Select Committee has dealt is the Law Commission. One of the tasks of that august body under a series of distinguished judicial figures and latterly under the guidance of Mr. Justice Brooke has been to reform the criminal law.
Almost everyone agrees that what would most reform the criminal law is the creation of a code of criminal law. However, that is light years away under our present system. There is simply no machinery for dealing comprehensively with a large subject such as the codification of the entire criminal law because there is no time in the parliamentary year to deal with it, even though much of what would be agreed by a commission and then fed into what I postulate might be a new Select Committee would be entirely non-contentious.
If we do not have such a system, one problem is the frustration that is engendered. The inadequacy of Parliament may lead the Commission to recommend the taking of policy decisions, or inspire the judges to take policy decisions, which they did recently in deciding against Parliament—although they seem to have forgotten that that was so—on the introduction of a crime of marital rape. Public policy decisions are for Parliament; they are not for academics, agencies and judges.
I ask the Procedure Committee and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider whether we might devise a Select Committee, perhaps of both Houses of Parliament, whose function was solely to reform the criminal law—to do it steadily and relentlessly over a period, calling witnesses, arguing the issues and coming to conclusions which are reasonable, sensible and acceptable to all those involved in the administration of the criminal law.
Of course, it would be necessary—here is the rub—to bypass the Chamber on all issues except those which raise questions of public and political principle and policy. The


age of consent, the question whether there should be an offence of marital rape, the age of criminal responsibility, the question whether the sentence for murder should be mandatory or discretionary and a whole string of other similar issues would be a matter for this Chamber, and this Chamber alone, but most of the matters that would be included in a criminal code would be non-contentious matters which Parliament, through either the House of Lords or the House of Commons, or both together in a Select Committee, could agree. That would reflect adequately and properly the needs of society.
If we could devise such an additional Select Committee system, we might be able to make progress on criminal law reform in general and on a code of criminal law in particular. We could thus simplify, clarify, spread knowledge and understanding of, and speed the administration of the criminal law, and Parliament would have taken a big step towards improving the social fabric and order of our society. That is, after all, the main reason for our existence.

Mr. Bruce George: I rise for the second time in about a week to talk about parliamentary reform. For the sake of those who heard my speech the first time round, I shall try not to duplicate the remarks that I made on that occasion. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). I spent much of Thursday eulogising, if not the hon. and learned Gentleman personally, the report on racial violence and racial harassment to which he referred. It is a superb report, although I wonder whether the Home Office will see it in such a good light.
Many of the reports produced by the House are the result of a great deal of research and wisdom. Regrettably, that wisdom is rarely transmitted to those at whom it is directed—that is, the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) said, we spend a long time on a report, wait three months for an anodyne response and that is virtually the end of the matter. The report may circulate around the Department, never to resurface. If anything is acted on, it may be a little bit of a recommendation. Academics may pick it up, so it is regurgitated later.
I should like to see a serious study done, as was done by the old Expenditure Committee. I was interested to see that the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee did a detailed analysis of the recommendations that were made. What happened to those recommendations? Regrettably, much of the endeavour has totally dissipated. When one adds the amount of time that we put into researching and arguing a report, it seems to be an inadequate response.
Frankly, I am disappointed that we are debating a report that was published in the 1989–90 Session. It has taken a long time to debate the report; it is almost time for a new Procedure Committee. I am even more disappointed by the appalling response of Members of Parliament. I am pleased that there are some Committee Chairmen present, although I am disappointed that we do not have infinitely more. The Leader of the House can gleefully pass on to his colleagues the message that the troops are not really interested in parliamentary reform, so there is not much impetus. I hope,

however, that he will seek almost self-generation in the matter and try to go down not only as the Leader of the House who was seriously interested in parliamentary reform but as the Leader of the House who sought and was successful in implementing a number of significant changes.
Regrettably, we are complacent about the way in which we operate. We pat one another on the back and say that the Select Committee system is basically satisfactory. The Government say in their report that they agree with the Procedure Committee that the
system is basically sound and does not stand in need of major reform".
That is like asking the Italian mafia whether they are happy with the performance of the Italian police. Of course the Government will say that they are happy with the existing arrangements. They are the substantial beneficiaries of a Select Committee system which does not properly harness the abilities, competence and knowledge of hon. Members, for two basic reasons.
First, Members of Parliament do not seem to be all that enthused about procedural change; secondly, Ministers are delighted that having got over the worst in 1979, with the system being more or less imposed on them, it has not proceeded much further. I was desperately hoping that the report of the Procedure Committee would say something like this: "As the Select Committee system has been operating since 1979, we have had ample opportunity to analyse its successes and failures. We have now decided that, having conferred no power whatever on the Committee system, other than the power to send for persons and papers, the time has come to confer some significant powers on the Select Committee system". There is nothing at all about that in the report. If another Procedure Committee is set up, I wonder whether it would exude the same sense of self-satisfaction.
I very much admire what the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said. Indeed, I agreed with almost everything that he said. However, he exhibited a tendency of which we are all guilty—that of comparing the House of Commons with the United States Congress, which is an unfair comparison because the constitution of the United States conferred decision-making powers on Congress as part of the reaction to the reality of strongly centralised decision making in the United Kingdom. When we say that we cannot go too far down that road, of course we cannot. However, we do not often compare our parliamentary and Select Committee systems with similar parliamentary committees. It would seem that we do not compare at all favourably with the United States system.
We produce reports that are as good as any, but we have no power to legislate and we have no power in the Budget. What we have is a factory for manufacturing reports which are often completely ignored. We say that there should be a bridge between reports and debate, but there is hardly any bridge at all. The Government said that they do not want to give more time for such debates. Of course they do not. I find the whole thing profoundly unsatisfactory.
We have influence only in the Select Committees. Occasionally, we are able to move, change and reverse policy. Often, when a report comes out, there may be no other news and the Government are forced on to the defensive—there are instances where that has happened. The media may concentrate on one report and the Government may be embarrassed into taking action.
I recall a report with which the Defence Select Committee was involved in the early 1980s regarding the physical security of military installations. It was an important report, because a Standing Committee on privatising the royal ordnance factories was proceeding parallel with the Select Committee inquiry into physical security in military installations. The Government intended to privatise security, kick out the Ministry of Defence police and bring in a contract security firm.
I was a member of both the Select Committee and the Standing Committee, and by the time we reached clause 27 of the Bill the Defence Select Committee had totally destroyed the Government's argument. Everyone on the Committee was happy that the Government relented. That was one of the few triumphs for the Standing Committee system. In reality, an inquiry by the Select Committee resulted in the change and it was accelerated by the fact that when our report came out there was no other news. The Government were therefore forced into a corner and they climbed down.
There are two lessons there. We should not need to rely on the fortunate absence of other publicity and the process of legislation should be linked with the process of investigation. The Procedure Committee report recommended that greater attention be given to Standing Committees and that in Session 1990–91 there should be more Special Standing Committees, but nothing whatever came of that.
Looking at the Government's response—the paper is yellow with age and fraying at the corners—I agree that there should be more emphasis on broad expenditure priorities. The trouble is that We tend to be more interested in high policy than in the boring minutiae of the budgetary process. In that sense, some of the blame lies with ourselves.
The Government said that there would be no sub-Committees because the Procedure Committee did not want them, but I see sub-Committees as a means of increasing one's output by putting more pressure on the Government on a variety of fronts. The Government do not want that to happen.
On special advisers, the Government and the Clerk of the House said that they did not want
a standing army of Parliamentary experts".
The use of the words "standing army" is clearly abusive. I believe that a Select Committee backed by professional expertise is the best way to proceed. If there is not animosity between the Clerk and the advisers, there is some turf protection and I can understand why the Clerk does not always want to see too many advisers.
We should have more power to increase staffing levels, and I agree that we should do more to link with the Library. We have a marvellous Library with marvellous staff, but I would ask anyone who gets too carried away to go to the congressional research service and see the extent of research there. No one can dispute that it is a different political system, but I believe that the quality and extent of research being done for congress members by the congressional research service is such that we should seek to bridge the gap between it and our system.
On allowances and facilities for entertainment, the Defence Committee had a visit from a Nordic defence committee a few years ago and its members dragged out of us our entire allowance. They could not speak a word of English, but they knew all the brands of whisky and other

drinks and we were destitute as a result. It is a good idea to entertain modestly, but we can hardly be described as the last of the great spenders.
In conclusion, we should have appropriate powers as we often have to deal with labyrinthine bureaucracies. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower talked about nosing around Departments. He may find the task of nosing around the Welsh Office difficult, but I suspect that nosing around the Ministry of Defence would result in immediate incarceration. As a Back-Bench Member, I sought an unclassified briefing from a middle-ranking civil servant in the MoD. The meeting was arranged, but it was vetoed because a Back Bencher could not get into the MoD to talk to a middle-ranking civil servant. The bunker in the MoD is not under it—it extends up to the brain: it is an Ottoman approach to decision-making and we are not the beneficiaries of it.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) makes a powerful case for the rights of Select Committees, and in particular for the right of Select Committees to eat into time on the Floor of the House. He makes that case in an effective and unique way.
The right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins)—unusually for him—opened the debate on a note of controversy. He said that the setting up of the Select Committees may turn out to be Baroness Thatcher's lasting monument, and something for which she will be enduringly remembered. I dare him to go and tell her that. I do not think that that would be her perception of the 1980s, but the right hon. Gentleman is a brave man and I wish him well.
The core issue—all speeches have drawn this out—is the balance of power between the Executive and Parliament. Speaking from memory, I do not think that Baroness Thatcher was always to be found on the libertarian side of that argument. Perhaps for the right hon. Member for Worthing, history and the passage of time lend enchantment.
The purpose of Select Committees is to underpin Parliament's right to scrutinise, investigate and influence the work of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) spoke about effective control and stewardship over Ministers. He also spoke about Select Committees being the eyes and ears of the House over Departments. The conclusion from the Procedure Committee's report was that, in general, the Select Committee system is essentially sound and not in need of major reform. I accept that, but there are a number of issues arising from the report which deserve further consideration.
The broad conclusion of the Procedure Committee is right, and I thank the Committee for its review. I do not mean it unkindly when I say that the debate is timely. I know that the report came out in 1989–90, but nevertheless the debate is timely because, as the House will know, a number of matters concerning the reform of parliamentary procedure are under consideration. The report usefully informs future debate and will act as a benchmark. The fact that it does not propose any substantial change does not detract from its value, nor from its thoroughness. The


Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), fairly observed that it is a comprehensive piece of work.
Among the important issues raised are the relationship between Select Committee reports and the Floor of the House, and the role for departmental Select Committees in scrutinising departmental expenditure, including scrutiny of executive agencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North pointed out that three quarters of all civil servants now work for agencies, rather than directly for Departments.
The Procedure Committee report comments on the giving of evidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) referred to the scrutiny of appointments and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) mentioned the scrutiny of the Government's responses to individual Select Committee reports.
The other key issues to emerge from the Procedure Committee report include the points made about the role of the National Audit Office, and the relationship between the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee on the one hand and departmental Select Committees on the other. A very important recommendation by the Procedure Committee—I intervened in the speech of the right hon. Member for Honiton regarding the matter—was about the use of Special Standing Committees.
Time is short, so I can only refer to one or two points rather than doing the debate justice. I can see clearly that it is frustrating for departmental Select Committees to produce reports which do not get a chance to be considered on the Floor of the House. I understand the pressures of time on the Government—any Government, and not just this Conservative one—but we should try to find a middle way. If the suggestion of using estimates days is flawed, we should try to find some other way to ensure that the work of Select Committees is reflected in debate here on the Floor of the House. Not everything will be debated, but something should. In the current discussions, we can at least examine that issue again and see if something can be done.
Another continuing theme in the debate has been the extent to which departmental Committees should involve themselves in scrutinising departmental expenditure. The Conservative party's view on that seems to have changed, because at one time it was very enthusiastic about it. Each year, Departments produce a document that sets out their spending plans. We used to have a whole day's debate on those plans, but the last one was in May 1991 and it has now slipped out of the parliamentary calendar. We cannot even get an assurance from the Leader of the House that that debate will be restored to us this year. It is right that Parliament should take seriously its responsibility for scrutinising public expenditure, and the Select Committees have a role to play in that.
The establishment of Special Standing Committees is an important suggestion. Some Bills occur every year, the Finance Bill being an obvious example, and they contain controversial and less controversial measures. There is an overwhelming case for a taxes management Bill, which could be dealt with by a Special Standing Committee to which experts with specialist knowledge could give evidence. Such a Bill would consider matters that do not tend to be the subject of controversy between the parties.

Those relating to anti-avoidance represent a shared objective between the Opposition and the Government, although one would not necessarily think so when one considers how they are dealt with in the Finance Bill. It would be far better for us to listen to the specialist evidence from the Inland Revenue, the Institute of Taxation and others and then make considered recommendations.

Sir Peter Emery: Get it right the first time.

Mr. Brown: Exactly so.
I know that accepting such a proposal would mean a longer gap between the Second Reading of the Finance Bill and its formal Committee stage, but the Opposition would be willing to agree to a timetable on a taxes management Bill. That would mean that the less controversial matters, once considered in the Finance Bill, could be dealt with in a measured and orderly way. Everyone in the outside world, as well as parliamentarians, would know on which day specific rafts of clauses would be dealt with and that consideration would be undertaken in a mature and considered manner. If the drafting was defective—that is a problem for Ministers—it would be exposed through the Special Standing Committee procedure and the relevant changes would have to be made. That could be achieved with all-party agreement, rather than in an adversarial manner.
There will always be rows between the parties on the main issues contained in the Finance Bill, because whether to raise or lower taxes is a controversial matter. That should be fought out when considering a truncated Finance Bill in Committee or on the Floor of the House, which is where we consider the main tax proposals anyway.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) referred to the work of the Law Commission, which considers similar complex issues. There is a clear case for establishing Special Standing Committees to consider specialist, complex legislation. I urge the House and, in particular, the Leader of the House to consider it.
The hon. Member for Cambridge, South-West (Sir A. Grant) said that in the past 15 years there had been a shift in the balance of power from Parliament to the Executive. I believe that that is apparent even within the Executive, with a further concentration of power in the hands of the office of the Prime Minister and the closest advisers to that individual. Almost imperceptibly, British government is becoming increasingly presidential. There are many reasons for that, not least government by a single party since 1979. We have to accept our share of the blame for that.
If parliamentary democracy is to work and command respect, we must assert Parliament's rights as enthusiastically as the Executive asserts its own. The case for the reform of parliamentary procedures, by consent, is overwhelming. The case for Select Committees will have been reaffirmed by today's useful debate.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): This has been a most interesting debate. The first thing I should do in what will perforce be a fairly brief contribution is to thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) on pressing for this debate—I was happy to accede to his request—and on the way in which he introduced it. I should like to thank and


congratulate all the hon. Members who have taken part, because we have had a genuinely constructive debate, even if it is not the kind which reaches definitive conclusions. A number of issues have been raised and I undertake to reflect on them.
I have had the privilege to be Leader of the House for just over two years and I hope that I can at least claim that my support of Select Committees and my desire to ensure that they work as well as possible has been reasonably demonstrated. Despite the observations from one or two people on the occasional delay in setting up Committees, we have not done too badly in this Parliament. I have checked up on the dates and I can tell the House that the new Parliament met for the Queen's Speech on 6 May—it had met earlier for swearing in and the like—and we had set up the Select Committees in a mere two months on 13 July.
That was done against a background in which I was told almost daily by the representatives of the newspapers that they did not believe that we would get the Select Committees set up by the summer recess. That achievement was a demonstration not just of my support, but of the Government's support for Select Committees, as is our acceptance of the great majority of the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, together with the recent establishment of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland.
I will say no more, and I say it quite unequivocally, than that I am a strong supporter of Select Committees for precisely the reasons that have been echoed during the debate—the improved scrutiny of the Executive, the scope that they provide for constructive consensus across party boundaries on a number of issues and their real and constructive influence. I would not be as dismissive or as pessimistic about them as the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) was. Those Committees have exercised that constructive influence on a number of important issues, not least those with which I was concerned for many years as a Minister with responsibility for health and social security.
The debate has highlighted a number of important issues for consideration by the members of the Select Committees themselves, as right hon. and hon. Members have generously acknowledged today, and by the Liaison or Procedure Committee. I am sure that the Chairmen of those Committees have taken careful note of the suggestions made.
The unanimous theme expressed during the debate—it is always one of the most popular themes in Parliament—has been to bash the Whips. One or two Whips are present and no doubt they feel duly chastened. They will take note of what was said. The proposals concerning the membership of Select Committees, which drew some criticism from hon. Members on both sides of the House, were made by the Committee of Selection. I am sure that the Chairman of that Committee will take note of what has been said, as will those who were castigated over the difficulties that arose from visits abroad or the absence of

such visits during the period when the usual channels were not operated by those in the Opposition. I do not want to be drawn further into that potentially contentious matter in the circumstances of this brief speech.
A number of points raised are in the hands of Committees and their members, including those made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) about the work rate. Other hon. Members spoke about the scrutiny of spending plans. Many Select Committees consider their Departments' spending plans and there is nothing to stop them doing so. There is nothing to stop them looking at the work of executive agencies and calling for evidence from the heads of those agencies. There is certainly nothing to stop them doing more to follow up their reports, as hon. Members have urged them to do today.
The debate has highlighted tensions, which I so often see in my role as Leader of the House, between the conflicting demands made from different quarters. Against the repeated desire of hon. Members for as little interference from the Whips as possible, to use their terminology, must be set the tension created by the suggestion for enhancing the powers of Select Committees to act directly without seeking a resolution from the House.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) also suggested that the recommendations of Select Committees should automatically be put to the vote in the House. If those suggestions were put into effect they would, almost inevitably, enhance the interest that the Whips would feel they would have to take in Select Committees. I put that as gently as I can, but it is the likely effect. I believe that the House would be right to be cautious before adopting some of the proposals made in the debate.
The Chairmen of the Procedure and Liaison Committees must accept that there is an obvious tension between the persistent demands for progress on the Jopling report—with which they sometimes associate themselves—and the demands for more and more time to debate the reports of Select Committees. Perhaps those tensions can be resolved, but they certainly exist. They come alongside many of the other difficult points which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and I are trying to tease out in our on-going discussions, which will also take account of some of the points that have been made about our economic debates.
I have little time in which to comment on the specific proposals that have been made. The Procedure Committee may care to look further at some of them, including video conferencing and the points about the European Legislation Committees. It is for my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and his Committee to decide whether they wish to undertake further examination. I hope that we shall all reflect on the useful points that have been made in this debate. I conclude my remarks simply by saying that, in line with the spirit in which I have approached the establishment of Select Committees, their work and this debate, my response will be constructive.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)

7 pm

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 25th May, be approved.
The draft order, which covers the main estimates for Northern Ireland Departments, authorises expenditure of £3,291 million for the current financial year. Taken together with the sum voted on account in March, this brings total estimates provision for Northern Ireland Departments to £5,824 million, an increase of 4.1 per cent. on 1993–94 provisional outturn.
The sums sought for individual services are set out in the estimates booklet, which is, as usual, available from the Vote Office. I remind the House that the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office for law and order services are not covered by the order before us tonight.
As is customary on these occasions, I shall highlight the main items in the estimates, starting with the Department of Agriculture. The net provision in the two agriculture votes amounts to some £164 million. In vote 1, some £25 million is to fund EC and national agriculture and fishery support measures that apply throughout the United Kingdom. In addition to the various pre-funded market support measures under the common agricultural policy, the vote includes some £10 million to assist structural improvements, by way of various capital and other grants; £14 million is to provide support for farming in special areas, by means of headage payments for hill cattle and sheep.
In vote 2, some £139 million is for on-going regional services and support measures. That includes £59 million for the development of the agriculture and agricultural products industries and for scientific and veterinary services; £44 million is for farm support, enhancement of the countryside, fisheries and forestry services; £22 million is for central administration; and £5 million is for the rural development programme, an increase of £3 million over 1993–94.
In the Department of Economic Development's vote 1, £130 million is required for the Industrial Development Board. That will enable the board to carry out its role of strengthening Northern Ireland's industrial base and to meet its existing commitments, primarily in the area of selective assistance to industry.
The board's continuing success in attracting internationally competitive inward investment to Northern Ireland is very welcome. Thirteen projects were successfully negotiated last year, representing a total investment of £259 million, and 2,309 jobs were promoted, against a target of 2,250. The board hopes to build on those successes in the coming year.
In vote 2, some £94 million is required. Some £34 million is for the Local Enterprise Development Unit, Northern Ireland's small business agency. That will allow the agency to maintain its successful track record in developing, strengthening and improving the competitiveness of small firms in Northern Ireland.
Some £14 million is for the Industrial Research and Technology Unit, which seeks to improve the performance of local companies through increased innovation, research and development and by technology transfer. That

underlines the importance which the Government attach to improving the competitiveness of business in Northern Ireland to enable it to meet the challenges of the international marketplace.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House will be interested in the work of the Department of Economic Development, but when discussions take place, as I imagine they do annually, will my right hon. Friend try to balance the protection of jobs through that work in industry and making Northern Ireland's economy competitive, with the 35,000 farming jobs, of which 10,000 to 12,000 are full time? The average cost of agricultural support is £1,200 per farm, which is good value compared with the cost of agricultural support in the rest of the United Kingdom and with some of the economic development investments which the Government rightly make.

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, as he brings to the House considerable knowledge of Northern Ireland, having been a distinguished Minister in the Province. I shall urge upon my hon. Friends, in their ministerial capacities, the necessity to heed his wise advice.
Finally in that vote, £12.5 million is for the Northern Ireland tourist board to assist the further development of tourism in Northern Ireland. In 1993, a record 1.26 million visitors came to Northern Ireland, the fifth consecutive year of growth in visitor numbers.

Mr. David Trimble: Is not that figure of 1.26 million visitors misleading, as most of them are people returning home or visiting relatives? Is it possible to know how many genuine tourists there were?

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for early notice of that point. I pray that, before the conclusion of the debate, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), will be able to comment authoritatively on the division of those statistics.
In vote 3—

Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give way before he leaves the subject of the tourist board?

Sir John Wheeler: I shall not leave that subject if the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene on it.

Mr. Ross: Is it not of concern to the Minister that there now seems to be no member of the tourist board specifically concerned with the principal tourist area of Northern Ireland—the north coast? Why does not that area have a representative on the board at present?

Sir John Wheeler: Individuals appointed to the tourist board of Northern Ireland are appointed not on a geographical basis but on the premise that they will serve the interests of Northern Ireland as a whole. As there are many claimants to the work and services of the tourist board, I sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will feel that that is the wisest course of action.
In vote 3, some £204 million is for the Training and Employment Agency. That includes £53 million for the youth training programme, to support some 12,000 training places and on-going expenditure on a new training facility in west Belfast.
Some £53 million is for the action for community employment programme, to provide 9,500 places for long-term unemployed adults in projects of community benefit. Some £24 million is for the job training programme, which offers training and work experience to unemployed adults. That is £1.6 million more than in 1993–94, and will allow the programme to expand from 5,700 places in March 1994 to 6,000 by March 1995. Eighteen million pounds is to assist companies to improve their competitiveness by training and development of their employees.
Token provision of £1,000 in vote 4 is to cover residual expenses in connection with the privatisation of the Northern Ireland electricity supply industry. That is offset by further proceeds from the share sale. A supplementary estimate, covering actual expenses and proceeds from the sale, will be presented to the House in due course.
I now turn to the Department of the Environment. In vote 1, £183 million is for roads, transport and ports. That includes about £152 million for the development, operation and maintenance of Northern Ireland's public road system. An extensive programme of maintenance work on carriageways and bridges is under way, complemented by new road construction, and improvement schemes. Construction work on the Belfast cross-harbour road and rail links is well under way, with completion of the rail link and stage 1 of the road link expected by the end of the year.
Vote 2 covers housing, where about £188 million will provide assistance, mainly to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and to the voluntary housing movement.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister tell us what he has in mind for the dualling of the A8 and of the A26?

Sir John Wheeler: At this precise moment, I have nothing in mind, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State may have something in mind before the end of the debate.
When net borrowing and the Housing Executive's rents and capital receipts are taken into account, the total resources available for housing this year will be about £570 million. That is an increase of £14 million on 1993–94, and will support the continued improvement of housing conditions.
Vote 3 covers expenditure on water and sewerage services, where gross expenditure is estimated at £200 million. Nonety-three million pounds is for capital expenditure, and £107 million for operational and maintenance purposes.

Mr. William O'Brien: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. What amount is set aside, in the capital expenditure to which he has referred, to continue the privatisation of the water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland?

Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend the Minister of State will seek to give the hon. Gentleman an authoritative answer on that. If not, I shall ensure that he has a written response as soon as possible.
In vote 4, £136 million is for environmental services. That includes about £34 million for urban regeneration measures, which continue to be targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental need. As in previous years,

that will generate much greater overall investment through the successful partnerships that have been established with the private sector.
The estimates for the Department of Education seek a total of £1,317 million, an increase of 3.6 per cent. on last year's provision. Vote 1 includes £807 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards, an increase of £40 million on 1993–94. That includes £760 million for schools and colleges of further education, which should maintain the pupil-teacher ratio at present levels.
Forty-seven million pounds is for libraries, youth services and administration, and £40 million for boards' capital projects. That includes the provision of new laboratories and technology workshops to enable further progress to be made on education reforms. Some £133 million is for voluntary schools, and £11.5 million for integrated schools.
In vote 2, £109 million is for local universities to enable them to maintain parity of provision with comparable universities in the rest of the United Kingdom. One hundred and twenty-four million pounds is for student support, including grants and student loans. The vote also covers expenditure on a range of youth, sport, community and cultural activities, including about £17 million for arts and museums and about £3 million for community relations.
The next set of votes relates to the Department of Health and Social Services. In vote 1, about £1,293 million is for expenditure on hospital, community health, personal social services, health and social services trusts and family health services. That is an increase of 6.8 per cent. on last year.
In vote 3, gross provision of £206 million is for the Department's administration and other costs. That includes £116 million for the Social Security Agency, £14 million for the Child Support Agency, and £13 million for the health and personal social services management executive.
Some £1,302 million in vote 4 is for a range of social security benefits administered by the Social Security Agency. That represents an increase of 4.3 per cent. on last year. It covers not only the general uprating of benefits from April 1994, but an increasing number of beneficiaries.
In vote 5, £458 million is to cover expenditure on the independent living fund, housing benefit, the social fund and payments to the national insurance fund.
Finally, I turn to the Department of Finance and Personnel, where, in vote 3, about £4 million is for the community relations programme. That reflects the importance that Government continue to attach to community relations in Northern Ireland.
In my opening remarks, I have drawn attention to the main provisions of the estimates. I hope that, in replying to the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will respond to the points that have already been raised with me, and any other points that hon. Members may raise during the debate.
I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Roger Stott: I thank the Minister for taking the House through the allocation of funds among the spending Departments in Northern Ireland. I do not intend to delay the House unduly this evening, because this is the opportunity for Members of Parliament from Northern


Ireland to mention a wide range of concerns—which I am sure they will, judging from past debates. However, I shall discuss several issues.
The Minister talked about funding for transportation. I do not know whether he was in the House this afternoon when the Prime Minister presented a report on the European summit meeting in Corfu, but one of the items on the agenda was European transport integration. The Prime Minister mentioned the link between Dublin and Belfast. I thought that money had already been made available for the improvement and upgrading of that railway line. I should be grateful, as I am sure would everyone else, if the Minister would say, when he winds up, precisely what that means in terms of European funding for transportation infrastructure in the island of Ireland.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as this is an important cross-party point. There are benefits in running a line across to Wales and then to Dublin, but it is worth emphasising to my hon. Friend the Minister that using the line up through Scotland to Lame will be of great advantage, not only for Northern Ireland, but for the northern part of the Republic of Ireland. In the European discussions, I hope that the needs of Scotland and Northern Ireland will not be overlooked, and that the Republic of Ireland will not gain all the benefits from the line to Wales.

Mr. Stott: As I said, it is my impression that an allocation of 50 million ecu has already been approved for the upgrading of the Dublin-Belfast railway line. As the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) will know, as a former Minister, Northern Ireland Railways is shortly to conclude work through Belfast to Lame, so that there will be a direct link from Dublin to Lame for people who want to travel that way, which is all to the good.
The Minister mentioned funding enterprise, and funding training. I hear what he has to say, and I make no apologies for the fact that I have previously raised the Government's record on unemployment in Northern Ireland. Overall unemployment continues to be a key concern in the local economy, and is of overriding importance to those people in Northern Ireland who are out of work or face the uncertainty of unemployment prospects.
The people of Northern Ireland continue to feel the full force of the Government's ineptitude, and are experiencing the highest rate of unemployment in any region in the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is about the size of a riding of south Yorkshire, and has a population of a little over 1 million. Unemployment in Northern Ireland is 13.1 per cent. of the total work force—an appalling level.
I genuinely welcome any decrease in the rate of unemployment, and I note that the figures for May show a slight fall in the level. But closer inspection and an accurate interpretation of those figures show that there is no room for complacency. Anyone who has read the "Northern Ireland Economic Review and Prospects" by Coopers and Lybrand will see that clearly.
More than half those registered as unemployed in the region are classified as long-term unemployed, and have been out of work for a year or more. While there has been

an increase in the number of people in employment of about 2,200, which is to be welcomed, the increase is made up entirely of female part-time jobs.
I welcome the creation of a flexible job market which extends choice to workers whose life style and needs suit part-time employment, but more than one fifth of the region's unemployed have been out of work for more than five years. It is therefore self-evident that the creation of part-time posts has had no significant impact on the number of long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland. They are the people who seek genuine security for themselves and their families, and are attempting to shed their state dependence through secure full-time employment.
The number of employees in full-time employment in Northern Ireland fell by 3,290 between December 1992 and September 1993. Despite what he said, the Minister has this evening been unable to offer any new hope to the long-term unemployed in order to help them back into full-time employment.
On closer inspection of the most recent figures, we see that the most appalling statistics are revealed in the travel-to-work areas. Eight out of the 12 travel-to-work areas in Northern Ireland have unemployment of 18 per cent. or more. Strabane continues to suffer the highest unemployment, with more than one quarter of the work force in its travel-to-work area unemployed. Of the 566 Northern Ireland wards 107 have a male unemployment rate of more than 30 per cent.
Those statistics lead to the undeniable conclusion that the Government are simply not doing enough to get the unemployed of Northern Ireland back to work and to help give them a future. It is perhaps the youth unemployment rate that, above all, highlights the worst neglect of skills and potential among Northern Ireland's population. More than a quarter of those aged between 17 and 24 are unemployed. What hope does the Minister bring to the Dispatch Box for them this evening?
Wherever young people live in the United Kingdom, their unemployment leads to widespread poverty, homelessness and a justified resentment. However, in the Northern Ireland context, it leads to disillusionment, and a spin-off, because the paramilitary organisations are readily available to exploit the problem. Unemployment and the lack of hope are probably the greatest recruiting sergeants for paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland.
It is surely the Government's duty to offer those young people hope in the form of increased opportunities and, in so doing, frustrate those who seek to take advantage of the frustration of Northern Ireland's young unemployed. The Government have consistently failed to deal with the problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland. I have outlined the statistics to show that this evening.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the training of young people in Northern Ireland, and the cuts taking place in training facilities?

Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman speaks of a subject of which I have some experience. I recently visited a number of higher education institutions in the Province. There, I was told of the conflict between what the institutions can offer young people in terms of engineering training and qualifications, and what the training boards are doing in Northern Ireland. The two organisations seem to be at cross purposes, and funds are not properly directed at the


problem. The Government have not focused on the problem of training in the way that the hon. Gentleman and I believe they should.
I wish to mention the prospects for public expenditure in Northern Ireland. The Government have been engaged in across-the-board cuts in public expenditure, as well as the implementation of increased taxation and value added tax, in an attempt to dig themselves out of the economic hole into which they have plunged this country. In Northern Ireland, the increase in public expenditure announced by the Minister today and on other occasions amounts to a rise of just about 4 per cent. in 1994–95, which, allowing for inflation, represents very little change.
Recent changes to the health service in Northern Ireland have done nothing to redress the increased resources spent on health management and patient care. Instead, the health service in Northern Ireland has been faced with an extension of the Government's obsession with privatising, and commercialising health and social services care.
The Government use the language of the marketplace in an attempt to sell ill-health and rationalise the sick. In particular, the Government have repeated mistakes already made in other parts of the United Kingdom, and have failed adequately to fund the provision of community care in Northern Ireland. Caring for patients in the more familiar surroundings of their own homes will cost money. If the Government are genuine in their offer to those people, they must clearly find the wherewithal to ensure that care in the community is effective.
One effect of the Government's so-called rationalisation of health provision has already been felt by the Royal group of hospitals in Belfast. The city's hospital provision is to be cut by means of the merger of Northern Ireland's two biggest hospitals. This move will reduce already limited bed capacity by 20 per cent. of the total—that is, by 750 beds by 1997.
The record of the Royal Victoria hospital is agreed worldwide to be one of the very best. It currently boasts 36 specialties on the site—not only the greatest number in the United Kingdom but the greatest number in any hospital in Europe. In addition, at least five senior consultants at the hospital rightly enjoy worldwide reputations, and their opinions and lecturing skills are in demand the world over.
The plans to destroy the world-class capacity at the Royal Victoria hospital are strongly opposed by patients, medical staff and both local communities—and by people from across the region who receive such excellent care at the hospital.
The Royal Victoria is situated in the middle of the worst killing ground in Europe; it is regrettable that its experience is still required. Will the Minister therefore ask his noble Friend to look closely at the plans of the Eastern health and social services board, and to intervene to prevent the dismemberment of the Royal Victoria and the royal group of hospitals?
I note that the Prime Minister last week received a deputation of Northern Ireland doctors, who brought to his attention the enormous number of people who had signed a petition. There is real feeling in Northern Ireland, especially in Belfast, about this hospital. I hope that the Minister's noble Friend will not just brush off these genuine feelings.
As for electricity privatisation, the isolation of Northern Ireland's key electricity system, and its consequent vulnerability, mean that the strategic implications of privatisation should have warranted a much higher place in

the consideration of the surrounding issues. It is clear, however, that the key factors behind the decision had nothing to do with an energy strategy, and were primarily based, first, on decisions by Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office that, in order to win their ideological spurs, they needed to play their part in the privatisation policies of the Government—however belatedly.
Secondly, the Treasury needed to acquire the assets from the sale to fund the ever-burgeoning public sector borrowing requirement. Both are short-term approaches. It is abundantly clear that energy provision needs instead to be based on strategic planning. Indeed, this short-termism is evident in the hands-off approach which the Department of Economic Development is now adopting.
Having put the legislation and the framework for privatisation in place, the Government and the Department have taken key decisions that have tied up long-term supply contracts, none of which can be cancelled before 1996. Further, the regulator is debarred from expressing an opinion on the decision to proceed with the interconnector to Scotland.
In my view, the DED and Ministers have taken decisions that are in the best interests of the DED and Ministers, not of Northern Ireland Electricity or the consumers there. They have achieved the political objective of privatising a major asset in Northern Ireland. They have brought £700 million into the Treasury and have been forced to concede only £14 million over four years to the larger groups of energy consumers by way of recompense.
Having taken the key decisions, Ministers can now stand back and, should anything go wrong, transfer the blame to the three key operators: the generators, the regulator and what they call market forces. The decisions already made on long-term contracts and the Scottish interconnector mean that the Department has effectively cut off debate about new generating capacity, and has tied the regulator's hands and ability to control existing generating contracts for some time to come.
I do not wish to trespass on the territory of tomorrow's debate on the privatisation of Belfast harbour, but I suspect that my hon. Friends will show that the dogmatic approach adopted by the Government, while refusing to take into account the unique regional circumstances of Northern Ireland, is short-sighted, and no more than an attempt to get their hands on the cash from that valuable asset.
This order represents nothing more than a shuffling of an already meagre budget for Northern Ireland. The Minister has nothing new to offer, particularly for the unemployed. Of that, the Government should be thoroughly ashamed—

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): Just before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he answer one question? He accuses the Government of spending too little in Northern Ireland. How much does he intend to spend if he comes to power—and how would he pay for it?

Mr. Stott: The Minister and the Northern Ireland Office have produced a report for the scrutiny of the House; it is my function to point out its shortcomings to him, which I believe I have done with some clarity. It is not my duty this evening to tell him what we would or would not do: it is the Minister who has to answer for his actions in Northern Ireland. I am pointing out to him the disgraceful amount of


unemployment there. In his position as a retread, he cannot get away from the fact that the Government have been in office for 15 years, or from the issue of unemployment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: This debate gives us an opportunity to deal with matters of grave concern to those who represent Northern Ireland in the House. The Opposition spokesman highlighted the high rate of unemployment in our Province. No public representative of Northern Ireland could be happy with that. Some of our constituencies enjoy better rates of employment than others, and we are happy for those who are in that fortunate position. In general, however, every Northern Ireland Member feels grave concern about the matter.
I regret the fact that no member of the Social Democratic and Labour party is present for the debate. We may disagree vigorously with the SDLP about the constitution, but here is one matter that should unite all our public representatives: the future well-being and prosperity of the people of Northern Ireland. Our people should be able to earn their livelihoods, get a rate for the job and bring up their families in the conditions that they would want.
Let no one underestimate the seriousness of the unemployment problem in our Province. Ministers on the Front Bench—they appear to be smiling at the moment, but I do not suppose that they are smiling at this—need to acknowledge the seriousness and scale of the problem, and show us that they have in mind measures to bring about some alleviation of it. Perhaps then we will be on the road to the day when there will be ample employment for members of every class of society in Northern Ireland.
I am especially concerned about training in Northern Ireland. Those in the training centres training our young people fear that there is to be a cut in funding that will result in great heartache for our youngsters, especially in the working-class districts of our city of Belfast. I note that the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) is nodding and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) fully agrees with what I am saying.
I am not in a position to speak for parts of the Province other than the city in which I live, but there is a concern throughout Northern Ireland that financial cuts in training projects will knock the heart out of many young people who, when they leave school, look first to training. I pay a warm tribute to those who have dedicated their lives to training. I have visited the training centres and I am amazed by the large percentage of the youngsters whom they train who obtain permanent jobs rather than simply joining the unemployment queues. We should be grateful for that. The Minister's mind must be full of all the information that he is about to release. It will be like Noah's flood. Can he tell us something about training? Will there be a serious cut in funding?
There has been a series of crises in agriculture. The low prices in the pig sector seem to have stabilised or to have improved a little. However, there is still a difficulty because of our peripheral location and our distance from United Kingdom and EC markets. That means an added cost on imports, especially animal feed and, consequently, an increase in output costs. Northern Ireland producers face

a supplement of at least £12 a tonne on freight costs for feed. That is a disadvantage and I urge the Government to do something about it.
There are two ways in which the Government could tackle the problem. First, there could be a feed cost equalisation premium to ease the farmers through their days of difficulty. Secondly, we could do something that other EC member states do—exploit our EC membership. We could ask for intervention grain to be stored in Northern Ireland. The EC, not the Government, would then pay for the transport. It would also pay the rent for the grain to be stored. When the farmers have an emergency, they could use that grain for the same price as is being paid in the remainder of the United Kingdom. That is what other EC countries do, so why do we not do so to help the hard-pressed farmers of Northern Ireland?
When the Minister replies and releases that tremendous flood of information on us, will he also respond to that vital point? I have been pressing it for a long time. Indeed, I have pressed it in Europe and the Commissioners tell me that they envisage no difficulty with my suggestion. Therefore, we should be prepared to exploit the system for the benefit of our farmers.
There is great concern in Northern Ireland about animal health and the dangers posed to the Province through the introduction of diseased animals from countries where internal controls and health measures are less vigorously enforced. Northern Ireland has an agriculture system second to none. We can boast about it and the way that it is run.
I pay tribute to the noble Lady Denton, the Under-Secretary. She has given her energy and zeal to helping the farming community and it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that. Indeed, I was glad to carry her bags to the plane today as I felt that it would show that some people appreciate what she has done for the Province. I am glad that she is to join the Minister at talks in Brussels so that there will be direct representation of the Northern Ireland position. Anyone who knows anything about Europe knows that deals are made between Ministers, not civil servants.
A tremendous problem faces Northern Ireland agriculture. I believe in the environment and I believe that we should preserve our heritage and our environmental assets in the rural countryside. However, instead of being dictators, environmentalists should be partners with the farming community. They should help the farmers to preserve the rural environment. That is important.
The Minister must face the difficulties in agricultural planning. All hon. Members with rural constituencies with farming communities are pestered daily with a particular problem. The mother and father have done their stint on the farm and they want a retirement bungalow on their land. They want to end their lives on their own property. The Government are doing all that they can to block the necessary planning applications. I raised the matter on the last occasion that we debated the appropriation order, but nothing has happened. The cottages are tied to an agricultural lease and must be used by someone working in agriculture.
When old people retire and die a house is vacant, but that house cannot be let to anyone other than someone working full time on a farm. Today, there are few full-time farmers in Northern Ireland. The agricultural position in Northern Ireland is different; there is a different playing field. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member


for Bridgwater (Mr. King), knows all about that. I ask the Government to investigate the matter and release houses so that they can be sold or rented to people who want to live in the countryside but cannot fulfil the present lease agreement. I urge the Minister to study that matter urgently.
A document that was published on planning in the countryside mentioned farmers only once. It was very good of its authors even to mention that farmers lived in the country. I asked one of them to show me the word "farmer" and he replied, "That was a big mistake. We should have used it more often."
We were told that there would be an easing of planning procedures, and that appeals would run more smoothly and be more realistic. That is neither my experience nor that of my colleagues in the House, who have complained to me that they have great difficulty with rural planning.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the relaxed procedure was introduced as a consequence of a court case that found against the planning service, but a subsequent action overturned the original decision—so the planners are back where they started?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I want not procedures founded on a court case, but the law changed so that the lease and original planning condition can be broken. We know that the system is not working. There was a time when it was all right and people were happy, but that is not so today.
Linked with farming is fishing, and investment is needed in modern port facilities. The Minister with responsibilities for that aspect knows that to be true, from her visits to fishing communities. I am sure that they put their case far better than I could. Slipways are needed, specially at Kelkeel, and so are improved ice production plants, to meet the needs of the fishing fleet.
General Government policy in Europe is greatly restricting days at sea for our fishermen, who are being pushed to the limit. There is strict policing of fisheries in Northern Ireland—there are no Nelsons putting their telescopes to a blind eye. Serious problems have arisen at the quayside, and the Government must seriously pursue that matter.
We are seeing the opening up of the waters of the Irish box to the Spanish fishing fleet. When they arrive, it will not be like the Spanish Armada, when God sent his winds and broke it to pieces. This time, the Spanish will break our fishing facilities to pieces. One thinks of the number of Spanish vessels with double bottoms, so that they can take from the sea three or four times the allowed quota.
The United Kingdom had a good card to play, because it is our waters that the Spanish are fishing, but previous Governments and the present Government have not played that card. They should have vetoed some of the concessions that were made to other nations in respect of access to our fishing waters.
A problem also exists in respect of the electricity interconnector with Scotland. Carrickfergus and Larne councils have come out in opposition to the interconnector. It is feared that 700 jobs in the Northern Ireland power industry could be lost. With electricity prices rising, a serious situation could arise. Also, environmental damage could be done to the unspoiled part of Island Magee. Environmental groups in Galloway are also opposed to the Scottish installation.
I know that there is to be an inquiry, but will the Minister accept its findings? In the past, the Government have put their pen through the findings of certain inquiries that they did not like. What was the use? Will the Minister say tonight that whatever may be the result of investigations, the Government may be depended upon to ensure that the inquiry's findings are implemented? That is something that the Minister cannot dodge. He comes from Scotland himself and must know something of the agitation there.
All of us are concerned about the completed feasibility study into the building of a new university of Ulster campus at Springvale in west Belfast, which will require the injection of £100 million. There are fears that money would have to be taken from other education projects in Northern Ireland and its education budget. Perhaps the Minister could say something about that tonight. People are worried as to how the continuing revenue costs of such a university would be met.
There is the continuing threat of closure of small rural schools, and continuing pressure on schoolteachers, parents and pupils from educational reforms. I say to the Minister who is to reply, who has responsibilities for education in Northern Ireland, that his reaction to deputations has been appreciated. The Minister has listened, taken some propositions on board and been helpful in, many cases. However, there is much concern about the educational issues that I mentioned.
Northern Ireland still has a big housing problem. Is the Minister prepared to review the amount of money allocated to housing in the Province, which still has housing queues? One can find married couples with children who are still living with their in-laws. At a home that I visited the other day, the whole family—mother, father and four children—slept in one room. One would think it possible for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to do something, but it is not prepared to purchase ground and build new houses in that area. People do not want to leave the neighbourhood in which they were brought up, and they should not have to do so. They should be rehoused in the same district. The Housing Executive should immediately be given the proper resources to undertake necessary work. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
As to roads, on 16 June the Under-Secretary said:
I welcome the inward investment project to which the hon. Gentleman referred and I recognise the importance of access to Larne port. We hope to upgrade part of the road in 1997–98."—[Official Report, 16 June 1994; Vol. 244, c. 749.]
Which part of the road does the Minister intend to upgrade during that time? The Minister who opened the debate, who told us that his colleague would answer, must have been reading Hansard, or must have known what was in the mind of his other colleague; he was certainly very confident about what was in the mind of the Minister of State who is sitting next to him this evening. We have been given a date, and I wonder what will happen in 1997–98.
What will happen to the road from Ballymena to Antrim, the A26? As Member of Parliament for Antrim, North, I feel very aggrieved. The hospital for which the land was purchased should have been our main hospital, but it was taken from us. A firm promise was made that the roads to Antrim from Ballymena and further north would be designed so that people who became ill and had to be transported for half an hour, three quarters of an hour or an hour would have good roads on which to travel. That promise has not been kept.
The Antrim hospital, which is now up and running, is not sufficiently accessible to the people. It should be serving an area from as far north as Ballymoney, and even Coleraine, down to the borders of Antrim. Moreover, we were promised cars, ambulances and other conveyances. A committee was set up to monitor what happened in Larne. When people become ill in the night or have an accident, they are rushed to Antrim; the ambulance then leaves, and after receiving treatment those people must sit in the hospital all night because there is no transport to return them to Larne. That is happening repeatedly.
I hope that the Minister will tell us what he knows about the problems with the new hospital in Antrim. If he knows nothing, perhaps he will make inquiries and write to me. This is a serious matter, and it is coming to a head: there will be more problems with people being taken to hospital and simply left there.
I am also very concerned about the European rail link. The official map that has been issued shows just one link, with Dublin; there are branch links elsewhere on the island of Ireland. I raised the matter by means of a deputation, and the Commissioner said that he would look at it. I do not know what the current position is.
I do know, however, that there is tremendous agitation in the Irish Republic, which is trying to destroy the port of Larne. Larne is the second largest port in the United Kingdom—a good port, which used European money wisely and well. European Commissioners have taken photographs and exploited the port, saying, "This is the way in which European money is being used to benefit society." Now, the money that helped to make the port what it is, will be sidetracked in an attempt to take the volume of traffic away from Larne and keep it in the Republic.
As we know, the shortest sea route is across to Scotland. It is sad that the rail link has been closed, for big business could be done. I trust that, in their representations to Europe, Ministers will push for Larne's status to be maintained. It was established with the aid of European money, and has shown that it can produce the goods. I hope that we shall see a fight for its salvation. If European funds for the Dublin to Holyhead route are to be increased, let that be countered with similar funds to make the roads to Larne what they ought to be.
Finally, I believe that the Royal hospital should be kept. Unfortunately, it has a location problem, but one that the people of Northern Ireland have weathered. Given its international standing, the hospital should be preserved and helped. I think that there is a good place, too, for the City hospital, and that the hospital appreciates that.
Patients from Cork can be operated on in the Royal Victoria hospital, while patients from my constituency have to go to Scotland. There is something wrong with that. No one in the medical world would challenge the capability of the Royal hospital, whose surgeons and other professionals have the highest qualifications and have proved it worldwide. Why should our people have to travel to Scotland for operations, while people in the Republic can use the facilities of the Royal Victoria hospital? A hospital must serve its own community first; then, if it has places for others, it must serve them. I hope that the Minister can give us more information about the treatment

of patients outside Northern Ireland when we have the facilities in Northern Ireland, and beds in Northern Ireland hospitals are being closed.
We are all very concerned about old people, and about the senior citizens' homes over which there is now a question mark. The other day, at one of those homes, I spoke to an old lady who was over 90. She told me, "I have been here for more than 20 years and I should like to end my days here, but I am told that I may have to be shifted away from the few friends I have left in this community." Such action is not good for the aged, or for those who should be looking after them. Let me issue a plea for sympathy and concern for the aged in our Province: let us not close, willy-nilly, homes that have done such good service to the community. There is much emphasis on home care nowadays, but some people cannot go home because they need care all the time. If they can be cared for at home and want to be there, that is fine; but the needs of some cannot be met through home care, and we must provide for them.
Those are some of the matters that concern me. I hope that the Minister will give them his attention.

Mr. William Ross: I begin by taking issue with the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), who said, in praising the Royal Victoria hospital, that it was situated in the middle of the worst killing ground in Europe. I know that we have our problems, but we have not yet approached the level of killing in places such as Bosnia. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will agree that his words were not as wisely chosen as many of the rest of his remarks.

Mr. Stott: I acknowledge that I said that, but I had meant to say "in the European Community". I acknowledge that in the past two or three years we have seen dreadful scenes in some areas of Bosnia. Even the hon. Gentleman would not deny, however, that in the past few years the area around the hospital in Belfast has been a terrible place for people being killed.

Mr. Ross: I acknowledge that, not least because the area is within a square mile of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) and the number of deaths has been horrendous. It would wrong, however, to let folk outside Northern Ireland or even the United Kingdom believe that the position is worse than it is. God knows, it is bad enough—we do not have to add to the misery.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) discussed retirement dwellings and the right to sell. No one should be under any delusions that this is a difficult matter. Hon. Members will know that I am a farmer, so I am well aware of the problem and of the extended family nature of the farming community in Northern Ireland. Two or even three generations can be resident on or near the family farm. I fear that, if we loosen the right to sell too much, applications for other dwellings will be made in 10 or 20 years' time. The Minister is nodding and I am sure that note has been taken of the matter. I hope that there will be some loosening of the right to take tenants into such accommodation, which would often relieve farmers of the problem for years. The matter is worthy of consideration.
While I am on the issue of planning, I should like to raise an issue that has caused me some concern. A large


housing development was constructed in my constituency, after which other constituents found that water pressure had disappeared from their homes. I made inquiries and was told that the Water Executive was doing its best to remedy the problem and that, within the next month or so, it would be remedied. When I made further inquiries, the water service told me that the development was such that water demand would be outside the range of the existing main and that the developer should liaise with the Water Executive.
That is fair enough as far as it goes, but I hope that the provision of public utilities such as water will be given greater consideration. Towns such as Coleraine and Limavady are expanding like mad, but not enough consideration is given by the planning authority at an early stage as to whether a public utility—water, sewerage or electricity—will be up to the job. That creates enormous problems for people moving into dwellings. I should say that that is the first time in my 20 years in the House that such a matter has been brought to my attention. If it is happening in my constituency, I am sure that it is happening in others, and I see one or two heads nodding in agreement. Some consideration should be given to improving procedures to deal with such problems.
The next problem is of constituents who contract a rare medical condition. I am sure that every hon. Member knows that there are an endless variety of medical conditions, many of which are very rare. As it happens, this year three totally new conditions have been brought to my attention. In the first case, the individual was told by doctors, including the consultant at the Royal Victoria hospital, that he had multiple sclerosis. It was then discovered that he did not and that he was possibly the only person in Northern Ireland with that particular disease, but that he could be cured by a difficult and delicate operation. His family faced a horrendous time in the period between the diagnosis and the operation.
The second case appeared to involve hlyasthema gravis—an awful auto-immune disease that causes fluctuating, sometimes fatal, weakness. Again, the individual involved suffered many problems. The third case involved a constituent who I know personally and who had contracted dystonia, the symptoms of which are very nasty. He and his wife were working. Over a period of months, he suffered increasing and great pain. The family income went clown enormously because he had to leave his work. Like most young couples buying a house, he was a comparatively young man. Doctors had some difficulty identifying the condition. They also ran into a series of problems in relation to the financial help to which they were entitled—a problem that is common to the cases of the three individuals who wrote or came to see me.
Families in that position, often with no experience of how the social security system works, face severe problems. They look to all the statutory agencies for help and experience difficulty in receiving disability living allowance, severe disability allowance, mobility allowance and other benefits. As only the wife is working, they suffer an horrendous drop in family income, which has a devastating effect on the family.
I am not an expert in such matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) knows a lot more about them than I do. The Government must consider them because they involve distressing cases. It may not always be true that hard cases make bad law, but sometimes they call for rather more sympathy than is

readily apparent to those of us who are brought face to face with the consequences of such illnesses. The matter goes much wider than that. So far this year, I have had three cases. Heaven only knows what horrors await hon. Members at their next constituency surgery or in the post tomorrow morning. I hope, therefore, that the Government will consider the matter.
I have heard of one or two cases where students were involved in motor accidents and were unable to continue their studies for some time, or suffered an illness that rendered it impossible for them to return to their studies. As they had not been paying national insurance contributions, they could not draw the benefits that were available to other people. They intend to return to their studies. Those involved in car accidents may, in some cases, eventually receive some compensation, but they have to get from where they are to that happy position. In the intervening period, some of them are without any income and are totally dependent on their parents, who are often incapable of supporting them.
Something needs to be done. I have corresponded with the Minister in regard to one student. I hope that the problem will be resolved because it is clearly a United Kingdom-wide problem. It needs to be looked at and dealt with sympathetically to allow these young people some income while they are recovering until, eventually, they can continue their studies. It would be an enormous waste if those young people said that they were giving up their studies and surrendering the possibility of grant.
The next matter has occupied quite a few column inches in my local newspapers. It arises out of the large payments now being made for electricity produced under the non-fossil fuel obligation. The Minister is well aware that there has been a hullabaloo over the wind farm on Rigged hill. There is some talk about what is happening at Corkey, but that is not my immediate problem because it is in another constituency. There is continuing concern and unease in the community in Limavady about the Rigged hill project, although the council has decided that it will not raise any objection, even after listening to the folk on both sides of the question at a recent special meeting.
It is interesting that the Northern Ireland legislation appears not to require a formal environmental impact study. At least in the Corkey case and in the case of Rigged hill, an informal report was prepared. I have looked at the 1985 EC directive and at the United Kingdom regulations that brought it into force in 1989.
It is interesting that two categories are covered under the EC directive and the regulations. There is a need for reports on the water generation of electricity and for generation through thermal stations. Indeed, the legislation runs rather wider than that. Nowhere is wind generation mentioned. We are told that we must take into consideration all the developments that have an impact on the landscape, as the EC directive says, and on the environment, as the regulations say—in civil servants' eyes, those phrases may or may not mean the same thing—in terms of the visual effect.
I have seen wind farms in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Anyone who says that they are not intrusive is living in a dream world. The wind farms can be seen from many miles away. In the report on Rigged hill, folk were told that the windmills would be 30 m high. In fact, they will be 60 m high—four or five times the capacity of the project originally mentioned.

Sir John Wheeler: indicated assent.

Mr. Ross: I see the Minister nodding. He is well aware of the fact.
The matter is not as simple as it appears and we need to take a careful look at wind generation generally. Rigged hill is part of the escarpment that runs from Benevenagh in the north to beyond the Glen Shane pass, a distance of 20 to 25 miles. Every inch of that escarpment is a first-rate place for a wind farm. Whenever I mentioned that to the planners, they said, "Wind farms will not be built the whole way along." My immediate reaction was, "Why not?" It must be one of the best sites in the British Isles for a series of wind farms.
We need to sit down and put on our thinking caps before going any further down this road. The beauty of the countryside and its tourist potential are such that we must have some regard for the visual impact. There are not normally many folk on those hills, which are hundreds of feet high. However, we must think rather more seriously about the whole matter than has been the case hitherto.
The constituent who raised the matter with me pointed out that there was a letter, which is mentioned in the documentation, which was sent to the B9 energy section from the Londonderry division of the town and country planning service on 24 November 1992. There was also a letter to EM Consultants on 21 May 1993. My constituent has been unable to see the letters. I assume that, as they have been issued by a public body, they should be available to the public. I should be grateful if the Minister would give an undertaking to place them in the Library and then tell me when they are there because I would like to see them.
Environmental impact studies have a whole series of regulations surrounding them. They are supposed to be available to the public and copies are supposed to be made available to the general public. Councillors are supposed to be told about them. The reports prepared in these two cases were allegedly available, but they were never advertised. No one knew that the reports were available for examination. My constituent, who found out about them more or less by accident and then went to have a look, is not very happy. If we go down this road, the general public must be taken along with us. They must be given an opportunity to object to anything that they think might have a long-term detrimental effect on the landscape in which they live. I hope that planners will be rather more open about such matters in the future.
I want to touch on one or two other matters, not least the horrendous case of pollution in the River Strule. As the House knows, I believe that work keeps interfering with my angling. I am afraid that I do not get very much angling done these days.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Shame.

Mr. Ross: It is a shame—a dreadful shame. The duties of this place and our duties to our constituents dictate that we must spend a lot of time away from the river bank.
Unfortunately, someone let a large amount of wood preservative into the Strule. As the Minister, who is also a keen angler, knows well, nine miles of the river were poisoned to the extent that the water plants were killed. It was not a happy situation. We were fortunate that the salmon smolts were away, but that did not protect the resident fish or the following year's salmon smolts in that area. It was a large kill.
I believe that the source of the pollution has been traced. I hope that remedial measures will be taken and that measures will be put in hand to ensure that such an incident is extremely unlikely to happen again. We have far too much pollution. Every year, we have a whole catalogue of disasters. The people who are responsible wash their hands in public and say, "We are very sorry that it happened. Please leave us alone and we shall get on with the work." The reality is that many people use the water for recreation, and they have put time and money into their activities, often on a voluntary basis. It is just not good enough that people seem to be able to walk away from these horrible pollution incidents, which damage other people, and that they get off practically scot-free.
I now turn to sub-head 3 of the vote for the Department of Finance and Personnel, which refers to money being spent on community relations and cultural traditions. It is all intended to improve relations between the various sections of the community in Northern Ireland. We then find that the way in which the Secretary of State intends to improve community relations is to bow to the Irish republican demand that street names should be put up in Irish.
I do not know who advised the Secretary of State and I do not know which Minister is responsible for the matter. It is just about the daftest idea that has come out of the Northern Ireland Office for many a day. Will the Government never learn that, if they take all those soft stories at face value, all they do is annoy far more people than they please? I do not hear Irish spoken very often in the streets of Dungiven, which I would have thought is one of the places where one may well expect to hear it. I do not hear it in everyday use and I do not think that many people do.
Since Irish has been taught and learned in Northern Ireland, it has been for a blatantly sectarian and political purpose rather than an educational one. If the Minister does not like that, he should go back and examine the evidence and he would gladly come to the conclusion that my assessment is correct. That proposal should be dropped and the money should be used for something far more useful. While talking about how the Government may use that money, may I point out that Limavady grammar school is still waiting for the go-ahead for its building programme. That money would make a favourable start in that process.
I hope that it will not be long before the Minister accepts the good advice which arose from several quarters and from the General Synod of the Church of Ireland—as it happens, it was held in Cork this year—where a number of leading clergy drew attention to the nonsense of integrated schools in the Northern Ireland context. We have been told that everybody has their freedom. I well remember the roots of the whole idea of total parental freedom of choice, rather than dealing with the schools in which there was something wrong. I am aware that the Government are so heavily committed to the idea that they are unlikely to change their mind, but if they had any wit they would drop it and some of the other proposals and get on with providing a proper education in every school in Northern Ireland. Then, if people are anxious to go to good schools, they can go to state schools and the voluntary grammar schools, which are largely integrated anyway.
I also hope that the Government have not lost sight of the need for the Coleraine hospital, despite the diminished number of beds which, apparently, are to be provided in Northern Ireland in a few years' time.

Sir James Kilfedder: For a number of years I have been fighting, and fighting relentlessly, on behalf of the Banks residential home in Bangor in my constituency to prevent the closure of that excellent home, which provides facilities for elderly people. I have been fighting to stop the dispersal of the residents there—senior citizens—who have come to regard the Banks as their own home.
A year ago, I presented a petition to Parliament, which was signed by many thousands of people. In all, 16,000 local people have signed petitions for the retention of that valuable facility in my constituency. I have written numerous letters to the Secretary of State for Health, to her predecessors and to the chairman of the Eastern health and social services board and other officials. Yet the threat of the closure of Banks and the eviction of the residents still hang over the heads of those vulnerable, elderly people. I therefore take this opportunity once again of protesting in the strongest possible terms at the inhumane way in which those people are being treated.
It would indeed be unfortunate if the Banks residential home were closed. It would be a traumatic experience for everyone in the home. For a group of frail, elderly people, with an average age of 85, it is devastating, and that devastation is being imposed on them by a body which is supposed to be statutorily charged with their welfare. That is a mockery. I refer, of course, to the North Down and Ards community health and social services trust, which no longer seems to believe in democratic accountability to the people that it is supposed to serve.
There is widespread community support throughout the North Down area for the plight of those poor people. The fight to prevent the closure has been organised and co-ordinated by a body of people known as the Friends of the Banks, led by Mrs. Marion Smith, the chairman of the pressure group. I pay tribute to her and her colleagues.
The campaign is based not only on emotion, although I must admit that I feel emotionally involved with those unfortunate people who seem to be pawns of an unthinking bureaucracy, but on the logical argument that there is a continuing need for the Banks. The home provides a first-class facility for full-time residential care, for respite care and as a base for a whole range of community support facilities for the elderly.
Indeed, the local unit trust appeared to accept that the Banks residential home is a first-class facility. Its own inspection team has given it top marks as a first-class establishment, and I can confirm that from my experience over the 24 years during which I have been a Member of Parliament for the constituency of North Down. I have visited it frequently each year, and I have long had connections with the Banks through meeting its residents and meeting relatives there and attending some of the functions there. I have always been impressed by the care and the consideration shown by all the staff towards the residents, and I know that that impression would be strongly endorsed by the residents and their relatives.

Mr. William O'Brien: I appreciate the opportunity to intervene on this important issue. The hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) has described the appalling situation over the application by the people who form the trust. Is it not a fact that we are witnessing what we described would happen—undemocratic, unrepresentative,

unthinking people appointed to the trust by the Minister? Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that he should condemn the way in which the trusts have been formed and the lack of democratic accountability of those appointed trusts?

Sir James Kilfedder: I readily adopt what the hon. Gentleman says about the attitude of the people in that unit of management. It was my opinion that they were there to serve the people. Certainly all the people that I have met felt that the people appointed to the trust are not serving them, the people of North Down, but are serving themselves and masters elsewhere. They are there to serve the people—the patients, the elderly and all those in need. In my view—I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said—they are falling down on their duty and turning a deaf ear to the pleas of people in this case: the supporters, the relatives and the residents of the Banks residential home.
The only reason for suggesting the closure of the home is that the site is a valuable one and its sale would partly provide the cash for alternative community care facilities. I am not certain whether the cash would be used wisely. I am sure that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) would echo that fear. The home is on a valuable site. The land, I understand, was given by a private individual for the specific purpose of providing the home. However, once the home is sold, developers may buy the land, but the money from the sale may be wasted on some other project. I feel that it is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul if, in fact, the trust intends to provide some other facilities, although I wonder whether, at the end of the day, it will. Surely we have not reached the stage at which progress in community care provision is achieved at the expense of the elderly and vulnerable residents of the Banks.
Leaving aside the sense of outrage at the proposal, the consultation has been abysmally handled by the unit trust. It has been forced to make postponement after postponement because it has mishandled the consultation. It was forced by the High Court to appoint an advocate to represent the old people at the home. The latest postponement arose from representations by the High Court about the way in which advocacy had been handled.
All the delays are simply adding to the trauma of the residents, who are becoming increasingly upset and depressed. Indeed, my latest information is that they are being given conflicting information by the unit trust about the outcome of the legal proceedings. Surely the fact that the unit trust has been endlessly forced to delay its procedures shows that the proposal is seriously flawed. Why cannot those old people be taken out of their misery by receiving an assurance that the Banks residential home will not close?
The situation has become so unreasonable that I strongly urge the Minister to intervene and to direct the unit trust that, in the interests of the old people, the closure procedure should be indefinitely abandoned.

Rev. William McCrea: I am sure that the hon. Member will be glad to know that many people throughout the House wholeheartedly support his contention and his appeal to the Minister. I am sure that the Minister, realising the strength of feeling in the House, will do something about it.

Sir James Kilfedder: I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend. I hope that his words will be taken in by the Minister. Perhaps we could have a positive response


when he replies to the debate. If action is not taken quickly, there will be a powerful feeling in Bangor and in the rest of my constituency of North Down that no one in authority cares any more.
I am most anxious that elderly people should remain in their own home as long as is humanly possible; I have said that often in the House. It is good for them to remain in the area that they know and where they have friends and where their church and other facilities are located. However, they need help with cleaning the house, making a main meal, lighting fires, washing and maintenance of the garden. That means the provision of home helps and other carers. Therefore, it is lamentable that home help hours have been seriously reduced and elderly people are left with less support. Our senior citizens are vulnerable at all hours of the day and night. I am absolutely disgusted that they do not receive the help that their years of service to the community entitle them to in the twilight of their life.
Elderly people are vulnerable in many ways. I drew attention only a short time ago in the Chamber to the way in which some youths have behaved towards elderly people. Greater action is needed. More police ought to be provided to stop gangs of youths banging on the doors of elderly people's houses late at night, throwing rubbish into their gardens, urinating on their front doors, writing obscenities on their walls and so on. We ought really to try to safeguard and look after our senior citizens. They deserve not just compassion but support, and something must be done to protect them and to give them the quality of life that they surely deserve.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: First, I draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that, during the last Northern Ireland Question Time, his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland referred to the A8 to Larne. If he looks up the reference, perhaps he will find out precisely what are the plans for that road. I agree with what has already been said about the importance of the Larne road and the A26, which is essential to the north of the Province and to the new hospital in Antrim.
Vote 2 of the Department of the Environment vote is for housing. We have received a considerable number of complaints both by letter and in the House about the inset fires fitted in Housing Executive houses. I have made my views known on the matter. Many of the complaints were well justified, although there was a great deal of scaremongering as well. I took the matter up with the Housing Executive at the invitation of the Minister and with the National Coal Board and the Coal Advisory Service. I found that both bodies had been working hard to find out just what the problems were.
I have seen test rigs and I can tell the House that the investigations have been exhaustive. Up to the present, they have been inconclusive in some respects, but the Executive and the Coal Advisory Service have certainly done their utmost to try to solve the problem. There is a problem with the fires and a problem with the flues. Those problems have been investigated. The point can certainly be made that the fires are not terribly handy for the elderly people who use them. There is a tendency to keep out all the draughts in a room. Unfortunately, to make a fire burn properly and keep alight a certain amount of air is required.
I welcome the fact that the Housing Executive is now looking at a new open fire, similar to the old Baxi-type fire, which draws in air almost artificially. I have great hopes for that fire. It would certainly serve and please those people who wish to have an open fire and at the same time run a given number of radiators, using fuel which is suitable for clean air zones. I put those points on the record now because in the past I have criticised the Housing Executive and the Minister on the matter.
An allocation problem still exists in the Housing Executive. None of us envies the job of the allocation officers because when they please one person they disappoint a hundred, but there is a case to be made for a return to giving some preference to local applicants. Unfortunately, if there are empty houses—or voids, as the Housing Executive calls them—in a given area, folk come in from all sorts of places to occupy them and local applicants are turned down because those coming in from outside appear to have greater priority. That matter should be examined. We should keep the local people in the locality where they have been brought up and wish to remain.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) said about care in the community. I certainly agree with all that he said. However, if we are to have care in the community, the Housing Executive also has a responsibility to provide proper housing for those people. Elderly people who want to live in the community or who are being asked to live in the community certainly cannot climb stairs or live in an upstairs flat. They require suitable housing.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on this important subject. Is he aware that pensioners and their families have been prohibited from buying their Housing Executive homes, although in some cases those homes may be in low-demand areas?

Mr. Forsythe: I am aware of that, although I was made aware of it only a short time ago. I understand—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) will keep me right on this—that even if pensioners have the cash to buy their home, the Housing Executive will not allow them to buy it. That is unfair. If pensioners have the cash and can buy a home without even getting a mortgage, I cannot see what objections there could be. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that matter.
We have certain types of houses which are not being occupied. Sadly, that means that some areas are going downhill because we have a lot of empty houses. That is a great pity because there is a shortage of certain types of housing. Perhaps that matter, too, can be examined.
I remind the Minister of a problem from the past which, unfortunately, is still ongoing. I understand that the case of the Orlit houses has not been settled. A certain type of Orlit house is still causing problems. I understand that the tenants of Orlit houses which were sold by an unregistered housing association are not being treated in the same way as tenants in registered housing association houses.

Mr. Molyneaux: I know that my hon. Friend shares my concern for a fairly large group of Orlit home owners in Lisburn in my constituency who have through no fault of their own have fallen foul of what appears to be a defect in the law because their houses were built by an unregistered housing association. There seems to be some slippage in


the drafting of the legislation between what I call the Ian Gow Bill and the Order in Council. We had to wait three years for the Order in Council. When it emerged, it seemed to be defective. I wonder whether my hon. Friends the Members for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) and for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) would accompany me to see the appropriate Minister, because it is a grave injustice.

Mr. Forsythe: I would certainly be willing to meet the Minister about such an important matter, and I would be pleased if my colleagues were in a position to go together.
The hon. Member for North Down referred to vandalism on housing estates. There is a case to be made for joint action to be instituted between the police, the Housing Executive and the social services. We have great problems in certain housing estates, and that is a great pity. Unfortunately, we find that when one bad tenant is put into a housing estate, within a short time 70 per cent. of the people on the housing estate want to be transferred.
Sadly, I have to point out that in some areas the drug problem is also serious. It is difficult for public representatives to explain to constituents who are worried about vandalism and drug problems that it would appear that certain things cannot be done. I ask the Minister to examine the situation carefully. Perhaps a task force involving local councils and so on could be set up to examine the situation and try to resolve some of the problems in this respect as they are serious for those who live in certain areas. It is sad that there are such problems.
Vote 4 of the Department of the Environment vote is for planning. I agree with all that has been said about tied dwellings. I am also concerned about the situation in which farmers, their families and others cannot seem to be able to build on their own ground. I shall digress slightly from what my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) said. My sympathy is with my constituents, not with the planners trying to keep people from building.
If we are to keep people on the land, and to keep the farming community as a family or a group, we should make allowances for that. Certainly, if we are to have empty cottages or bungalows throughout the whole of Northern Ireland simply because there is a planning rule which says that they cannot be sold or let to people who are not in the farming community, the purpose of spending millions of pounds on building Housing Executive houses escapes me if we cannot use them. I agree that that matter should be examined again.
One gets annoyed when one phones the planning service and the planning service says that these are the new guidelines. The guidelines have not been through the House; they are decided by the planning service. We are not told about them. There is no local council input. The decision is taken and the guidelines are then presented to us as being set in stone and we cannot change them. We greatly object to that.
We naturally object when enforcement is requested but is not carried out. Yet when we do not want enforcement, the planning service does it. Sometimes I think—and I say this to my friends in the planning service in my area—that they are perverse in that if we want something done, they do the opposite, but perhaps I am being unfair.
I wish to refer to vote 5 on the Department of Health and Social Services, and I want to put on record that we in Northern Ireland also have problems with the Child Support Agency. I know that the subject gets a lot of mileage in the Select Committee on Social Security—of

which I am a member—and I know that we have debates in the House about it, but the same applies in Northern Ireland as applies in the rest of the United Kingdom.
There are complaints about the CSA and hold-ups in assessments. We know that letters are not being answered and phone calls are not being returned—at least we are told that. That seems to be the same in Northern Ireland as in other parts of the United Kingdom. The same points are made on the subject. Why should clean breaks not be accepted? The debt switch arising from divorces and the travel-to-work expenses of the absent parent are not allowed for. Fifty per cent. of the pension contribution is allowed, not 100 per cent.
If a lady marries a man who is an absent parent, her income is immediately taken into account to keep the children of the absent parent. Some people would say that those things are not supposed to happen, but we know that they are happening. Sadly, that is the case, although even natural justice should demand that those things should not happen. It is rather unfortunate.
It is accepted that, when the subject of the CSA went through the House, everyone agreed that it was a good idea that parents should look after their children. Everyone would have applauded that, but there is a way of doing it and we should look at the subject again seriously. I must emphasise to the House that I and my colleagues are well aware that the staff of the CSA are doing precisely what the House requested them to do, and it is most unfair to hear about the aggravation which CSA staff are receiving. We must try to change the system to help those who are disadvantaged by it, but people should not take it out on the workers. We in the House gave them a task which they are now doing.
I would like to mention also "The Future of Pensions" recommendations which will be debated by the House and which will also apply to Northern Ireland. I know that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) will understand when I say that improvements and changes in pensions law should be brought in as soon as possible.
One thinks of evidence given by the Harland and Wollf management regarding the pension fund. They seemed to treat the members, former members and workers with great disdain and did not pay any particular attention to their views. I understand that the management saw the report and thought that it supported what they had done. In fact, the position was the absolute opposite. The pension fund trustees have not yet appointed a representative from the pensioners—unless one counts the chairman, who has now retired but remains as chairman of the trustees; one wonders whether he perhaps regards himself as a representative of the pensioners.
I hope that When the privatisation processes for the airport and the port of Belfast are taking place the Government will take into account the ideas and the new proposals in "The Future of Pensions" and build those into the pensions provisions in the privatisation of those companies.
I would like to ask the Minister briefly about the social fund. The social fund report from the Auditor General in the Northern Ireland Audit Office says that there were 1,901 cases of recoverable loans abandoned or impracticable to pursue. Why was that the case? The figure in the accounts states that the amount was £153,000. I would be the last to say that we should pursue people if they are


desperately in need of money and are deserving of it, but we should have an explanation as to why it was not possible to recover that money.
I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) about the disability living allowance. Nowadays, people suffer from new ailments and medical conditions which are not recognised by the medical practitioners who examine the applicants for the living allowance. That lack of flexibility should be considered.
The introduction of an identity card is an excellent idea. That little plastic card could carry a photograph and all the relevant details about an individual. Those in receipt of benefit could then take it to the post office for the purposes of identification. That would provide an excellent job for sub-post offices, which we are keeping. There is talk about the privatisation of the Post Office, but I know that we are keeping our sub-post offices. The card could also identify those who go along to vote, as that procedure is still subject to problems.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman should consider going a bit further and having an identity card in Northern Ireland for all purposes, including voter identification. In the past there was a difficulty about the introduction of such cards, but now that we have all-party agreement on it and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), the Social Democrat and Labour party representative, is now in favour, surely its introduction would be a non-contentious issue on which the Government should move ahead.

Mr. Forsythe: I agree. It is an excellent idea. It is not a particularly difficult job to produce the identification details required; they could all fit on the back of the card, just like our Access cards. Now that there is agreement across the House on its introduction, the Minister should consider it. My colleagues and I would support its extended use.
Vote 2 for the Department of Economic Development covers tourism. The Minister had a little debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East about the membership of the tourist board. He said that certain people were best suited to serve on the board and I would not disagree with that. I am not quite sure, however, whether there is an hotelier on the board. If there is no such member, perhaps that is why local business people who apply to the Industrial Development Board for help to build a hotel or complex are told that they cannot have one because the board will only give such grants to large hotel chains which come to Northern Ireland or to hotels associated with such chains. I am reliably informed that that is the practice, so perhaps the Minister will confirm or deny that when he replies. If it is true, it is disgraceful. We are talking about helping to attract people to Northern Ireland, and who better to do that than local people?
In connection with vote I for the DED, I congratulate the Minister, as I have done in the past, on the new investment and new firms that have come to Northern Ireland. I have seen the benefits of that in my own constituency and I welcome them. I know that the IDB has done a lot of hard work to attract such investment. As I have said on previous occasions, it is most unfortunate when the media choose to play down and, on occasion,

attack certain investments which people have worked hard to get. I give a black mark to the media for talking down or criticising certain matters. My second criticism of the media is that when the IDB is holding confidential discussions the media tend to leak the fact that those discussions are taking place, with the result that others get to know about the matters in hand. That is unfortunate.
I disagree with the Minister's high praise for the Local Enterprise Development Unit. My praise for the IDB does not carry over to LEDU, because it is supposed to help and encourage local people by putting them in a position in which they can create more employment but, sadly, that is not happening. I am sorry to end my speech on that note, but it must be said.

Rev. William McCrea: I welcome the finances that are rightly being given to the people and departments in Northern Ireland.
A number of the issues raised by hon. Members in a debate on the appropriations measure earlier this year have, unfortunately, not been dealt with. I trust that that will not happen tonight. Some hon. Members apparently feel that this debate is a waste of time. As happened in the past two important debates, one party is missing. Perhaps it feels that it can achieve better deals from Ministers outside the Chamber. It is about time that those who take the trouble to come to the debate and raise issues that are essential for their constituents received appropriate replies. The matters raised tonight are of grave importance to our constituencies.
Under the vote for the Department of Agriculture is the item "Castlederg Flood Defences". The estimate provision for 1994–95 is £16,000 and the amount to be spent in future years is £855,000. In winding up, will the Minister tell my constituents whether the amount to be spent in future years means directly after 1994–95, or will we have to wait before further money is spent on that item, which has been identified as of great importance for my constituents? It is important that it automatically follows on and that that money is spent to correct a matter that has caused great concern to many of my constituents, especially the owners of property and shops in the town of Castlederg.
Deep concern is still felt within the pig industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) rightly mentioned that prices have been better recently, but the industry needs the careful eye of the Government. An important part of my constituency's industrial community is Unipork in Cookstown. I am sure that the Minister knows that I welcomed the takeover of Unipork, and it was warmly welcomed in my constituency, but in several parts of the Province workers are deeply worried about their future and that of their employment.
I trust that the Department of Agriculture and Baroness Denton, who has that responsibility in another place, will keep a keen eye on that development. I wish Unipork in my constituency well; I wish the new firm and the people who run it every success. However, they should be keenly conscious of the people who have given excellent service to the pig industry throughout the years, whose rights must be guarded. I hope that the Minister will recognise that in her watching brief on development in the pig sector.
I shall now discuss the Department of Economic Development, and express my deep worry about what is happening in that sector. Will the Minister tell the House


the up-to-date position regarding ground intended for economic development that is owned by the Department throughout the Mid-Ulster area? Urgent Government action is needed in the industrial development of my constituency. We need to know the up-to-date position regarding ground in Omagh, in Cookstown, in the district of Magherafelt, which is shared between my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), and in Castlederg, an area of deprivation for many years. We are thankful that Castlederg is starting to come out of the doldrums, and that things are starting to appear much better for it after many years of terrible carnage and suffering, but we need to know the plans of the Department and the Industrial Development Board for the rest of my constituency.
Industrial development seems to be directed largely at certain areas. West of the Bann is identified as an area where industrial development is greatly needed, but I have studied the figures and I am worried. I hope that the Department is willing to investigate what has happened as regards industrial development. In the west of the Province, some areas outside the city of Londonderry—areas in my constituency, including the area verging Strabane, Omagh and Cookstown—have the greatest or second greatest unemployment in the entire Province. I believe that the Department must do more to ensure that industrialists come, because there is plenty for them to see that would attract them if they were brought into the area.
The IDB has done an excellent job and I join the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) in congratulating the IDB on the efforts that it and its chief executive have made. I appreciate their efforts and their work, but there must be greater incentives, and financial incentives, to encourage people. That is especially so given that the west of the Province is suffering because, while we are told of the great challenge of Europe, we lack the infrastructure to encourage the developers to come to the west.
Bearing that in mind, I naturally move to the vote concerning the Department for the Environment, and the essential part, which links with the Department of Economic Development. I ask the Minister to inform the House of the date of the commencement of the Cookstown bypass. We were visited by the Secretary of State, who has been visiting different councils and meeting councillors. He had a lunch and asked councillors, "What are the most important issues confronting your area?" That all sounds good, but in reality it is a public relations exercise. The Secretary of State raised the people's hopes.
I was at a meeting of industrialists, the elected councillors of the area, the schools and the rest of the community representatives. They were asked what they felt to be of vital necessity for the Cookstown area. The unanimous view of everyone present, who had been invited by the Secretary of State, was that essential to the development of Cookstown was the Cookstown bypass.
The Secretary of State—a Cabinet Minister; we could have had no one higher except the Prime Minister—visited the region and was interested in its needs and development. I thought that the most natural thing for me, as Member of Parliament, to do following the meeting which the Cabinet Minister attended, and where he listened to views with keen interest, was to send a letter asking when the Cookstown bypass would be built. We now have the vote and the details about the finances from the Department of

the Environment, but there is no mention of the Cookstown bypass, not only in the plans for 1994–95, but under the heading of money to be spent in future years.
What were the dinner—where a unanimous opinion was given—and its costs all about? Surely there must be more behind them than just a PR exercise. On behalf of my constituents, I demand that the Government not only say that they will listen to the people but take action based on the unanimous view of the region's political parties, industrialists and educationists. That is, that the Cookstown bypass is vital for Cookstown and its future development in economic and industrial terms and within Europe. The project would not involve big sums of money, but, without it, the future of the industrial development of the region will be stymied.
In the light of the Secretary of State's visit and the great hopes raised in the community, I must ask when we will get the Cookstown bypass. The question may be regarded as a hardy annual by the Minister as I have asked it on numerous occasions, but the problem will not go away until action is taken. I want not a PR exercise, but essential action. I am delighted that Ministers come to the region to see what is happening. I am delighted that they come to see the deprivation and neglect in the west of the Province, especially in the regions that I have mentioned tonight. However, I do not believe that it gives the community any heart if visits are made, questions asked about the needs of the area and seeming promises are made that action will be taken by the Department, when they all turn out to be a damp squib. That provides no help to the community.
In my constituency, in Omagh the main A5 is recognised as a trans-European highway—not many places have such big names, and it is a wonderful thing in this age of the European Union. It sounds tremendous, but means nothing. It has been so designated by Europe, but in the vote I find nothing from the Government about the money that is to be spent on it. All that I can find is that £700,000 is to be spent on stage 2 of the Omagh pass, but without phase 3 of the development in Omagh and the rest of the road network, the other work will be useless. We need not only the designation of the trans-European highway, but action to be taken on it.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East will join me in saying that we still await the Magherafelt bypass, which is essential for industrial development. We cannot face the challenges of Europe without the tools to do the job. If industrialists come to the area and find that they have to sit in traffic jams—time is money to them—they will not wait around for long. They will pass over the area and go somewhere else with better roads. That does not represent a fair sharing out of the available finance. I speak for an area that has suffered greatly from the lack of money that should have been voted by the House for its road development and maintenance programme.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North and others who have described the deep frustration felt in the countryside about the planning process. I resent the idea that officials care more about the countryside than do elected representatives. That is designed to give the impression that the only people who want to protect our environment are civil servants and Government officials. As a former civil servant I might add that I care just as much about the environment and the countryside as a


Member of this House as I did when I worked in the Department of Health and Social Security—and I have remained both civil and a servant to this very day.
When a council gives its unanimous approval to some project, surely that ought to mean something. The tragedy is that, oft times, once a council has given its unanimous approval to a countryside development, officials say, "We have listened to your argument; we have consulted; we are still going to turn you down." This causes great resentment. It is no easy matter to get the unanimous approval of a local government institution in Northern Ireland: it is tough enough getting it in this House. Officials should not, therefore, give a development the thumbs down in the face of a council's unanimous agreement.
Will the Minister give his attention to those who have been battling to save the Ballynahone bog near Maghera? That may not sound particularly interesting to some, but the people of the area want it designated a site of special scientific interest—which it is. Recently, there was an application to rape the countryside around the Curran bog. The local community and their elected representatives made representations—the latter as the defenders of the community. Interestingly, the Department is giving the go-ahead for the rape of the countryside around the Ballynahone bog, and I feel that it should give my constituents' interests more consideration than that. I trust that the Minister will reply on that point.
I have already asked the Minister questions about the serious pollution in the River Mourne and the River Strule. There have been major pollution incidents on both rivers in recent times. Wood preservatives got into the River Strule and much of the fish life in the river was destroyed. It was a major pollution of the river. Water from those rivers is used for human consumption so there should be greater curbs on those using detergents and industrial chemicals.
Farmers have to install catchment tanks for effluent from their silo pits. If there is any seepage, the Department of Agriculture comes down heavily on the farmer—and rightly so because we must not allow pollution. There are frequent court appearances. Industry should be compelled to carry out similar environmental protection in the interests of wild life. Will the Minister tell us the up-to-date position on the restocking of the Rivers Strule and Mourne?
I have been contacted by the Ardstraw anglers' club about the proposed site for a hydro-electric generator at Spamount mills on the River Derg. The anglers are deeply concerned about that and made four points. The River Derg is not a large river and the volume of water required to run the proposed plant could ruin the entire stretch of water for anglers. They are worried about the turbine design. If it has high revolutions per minute, it will be lethal and will kill a large number of fish. It is crucial that measures are taken to ensure the survival of fish in our local rivers.
With the installation of a hydro-electric generator comes the necessity for a well-designed fish pass that will be inaccessible to poachers and will allow the passage of fish in low water. The hydro-electric generator will cause a large loss of fish in the River Derg. Will the operators contribute to a restocking programme to redress that loss? Perhaps the Minister could respond to that point.
I want briefly to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a number of other issues. Many people throughout the Province are concerned about the length of time that it takes the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to deal with the backlog of applications for grants. A constituent of mine applied for a grant a year ago, but he has only recently been asked for sketch plans. His application is still in the pipeline and little progress has been made. That is not a criticism of the Housing Executive; it is an appeal to the Minister to provide the finances necessary for it to employ the staff to process the applications quickly and to meet the costs of grants awarded.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South mentioned the sale of two-bedroom bungalows for senior citizens. That is of concern to people in my constituency. Can the Minister ensure that urgent action is taken on the issue of Melburn close and Melburn park in Cookstown? We need to money to uplift the environment and improve the houses on that estate. If the money could be made available, that would be deeply appreciated by the residents.
Will the Minister deal with the question of the provision of science laboratories? I received a response to that point from the Minister responsible for education, but there is urgent need for the new-build science accommodation at the Cookstown high school. I have been promised the provision of two science mobiles from September 1995, but given the finance available in education, action ought to be taken to meet that high school's urgent needs.
Mention was made of the Child Support Agency, about which there is deep concern in all parts of the House. One of my constituents was blamed for fathering a child but was totally innocent. An apology was finally offered but there was no recognition of the deep hurt and anxiety suffered by the families concerned. That accusation against a totally innocent man nearly smashed a marriage. He was sent a simple apology saying, "We're sorry this happened and will try to make sure that it doesn't happen again." Such an attitude is totally unacceptable and redress ought to be available to individuals who have suffered in that way.
It is time that the Child Support Agency devoted its energies to tracking down fathers who pay nothing rather than going for those who have consistently and honourably paid for their children's upkeep down the years and have never dodged their responsibilities. It seems that the CSA's efforts are directed mainly at fathers who are already paying, and it is placing an intolerable burden on them. I resent that, and so do my constituents.
There is deep concern in the Province and further afield about the rights of disabled people in employment. The Government must produce meaningful and appropriate legislation to tackle that issue. Pressure must be kept up and legislation put before the House quickly. If the Government acknowledge their responsibilities to the physically or mentally handicapped, such legislation will quickly be on the statute book. Without it, we will simply be listening to words, and the community will not forgive inaction in that regard. Handicapped people are getting a raw deal in finding a proper and appropriate place in society. They are one of society's most neglected groups. My colleagues join me in supporting action and legislation that will bring that iniquitous situation to a conclusion forthwith.

Mr. David Trimble: It is a pleasure to note that the debate will be wound up by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), because this morning I had the pleasure of welcoming him to my constituency and to Banbridge high school. As the Minister will appreciate, some of his comments on that occasion with regard to tonight's debate have proved most apposite.
It was a pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman cut the sod for the new building at Banbridge high school. It was a most happy occasion. I am sure that the Minister appreciates that he will maintain his popularity in the area by also releasing funds for the school playing area that will be necessary when construction of the new building, which is on the site of the old playing field, is complete.
Schemes are going ahead in the rural part of Banbridge to amalgamate primary schools. Unusually, those schemes have the complete support of the local community, but there are financial problems—and they should be remedied as soon as possible.
It is a pity in some respects that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and his party colleagues are not present this evening, because the hon. Gentleman had an interesting written question down last week, relating to the number of jobs promoted in each Northern Ireland district council area over the past 10 years. My eye naturally turned to the two council areas that comprise my constituency. I noted the healthy but not surprising figure for the borough of Craigavon, which has the second largest concentration of manufacturing industry after Belfast in terms of size.
My other council area, Banbridge, was a very different story. Over a 10-year period, the Industrial Development Board had promoted a total of 200 jobs—and it should be borne in mind that the IDB recognises that only about two thirds of jobs promoted are actually created. None of those jobs involved investment in the area. That is particularly annoying given that the IDB announced only a few days ago that it was abandoning proposals for industrial development to land adjacent to Banbridge's dual carriageway, which would, in principle, have been a very suitable site.

Mr. Stott: Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) have mentioned the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). He and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—who are very good attenders of Northern Ireland debates—are not with us this evening because they had to give evidence to the Boundary Commission, which was doing its review today.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. May I point out that the Newry inquiry is also considering the seat of Upper Bann? Newry and Armagh council proposes its division into two parts to form new constituencies. That merely reflects the view that hon. Members take of their priorities.
The figures that I cited—which were obtained by the hon. Member for South Down—relate to a 10-year period, and clearly demonstrate neglect on the IDB's part. I stress the word "neglect". Both the IDB and the Local Enterprise Development Unit seem to have a fixed state of mind: once they move south of Lisburn they can think only of Newry, forgetting about Banbridge on the way down there. Perhaps they think that Banbridge is a prosperous town,

because it appears to be expanding; but most of the expansion is caused by people who are coming to live in a "dormitory" town, rather than to work there. It will not be healthy for the town's future if the population expansion is not matched by an expansion of job opportunities.
Other Government Departments, as well as the IDB, have neglected the town during the past 10 years. A number of public bodies used to have offices and employees there, but that number has diminished: Departments have been closing offices and moving them out, and the number of public jobs in the area has consequently declined.
Those issues need to be tackled, especially the issue of land development. As I said, the IDB was right in principle to consider developing land next to the dual carriageway. There were problems with the particular site involved, but others are available; they may be closer to Dromore than to Banbridge, but they are still in the Banbridge district council area. I hope that the IDB will deal with the position as a matter of urgency, so that we can have good-quality industrial development land in the district council area.
Let me deal more generally with issues involving the IDB and LEDU. There seems to be a certain inflexibility in the approach of the two agencies. For example, a firm in the Craigavon area has been a client of LEDU for some time; it is now thinking of expanding in a way that might make it more appropriate for it to become a client of the IDB, but there are difficulties in transferring a client from one agency to the other. LEDU is making difficulties about transferring the client to the IDB, although the size and development of the firm make the transfer appropriate. It is remarkable that these bureaucratic issues, which seem to be connected as much with the empire building of agencies as anything else, are acting in a disadvantageous way.
Inflexibility arises in another way. One valuable development in the Craigavon area has been the Craigavon industrial development organisation—one of the first local authority initiatives in this respect, which the Government are now encouraging. That is fine. It is a challenge to which Craigavon local authority has responded imaginatively, but it has not received a similar response from the agencies, in which I include the Department of Economic Development. They have their own settled patterns and a cast of mind which says, "not invented here". If they have not thought of the idea, they are reluctant to accept the thinking of other people.
We are trying to promote a Craigavon partnership, whereby the local authority's initiative can operate as an overall body to bring together the statutory agencies. We are not receiving the response from the statutory agencies that we should be. I hope that there will be more wholehearted co-operation between the statutory agencies and Department of Economic Development and local authorities engaged in such economic development.
A small example of such non-co-operation is that CIDO wishes to expand and have a third unit providing slightly larger accommodation—5,000 sq ft—in the Lurgan area. A private enterprise partner is prepared to put money into the project. The proposal has been with the statutory agencies for quite some time, but it is moving at a snail's pace. One almost feels that the agencies resent the initiative and drive that the local authority is showing. That is not an appropriate response or attitude for it to take.
Last week saw the first publication by the Fair Employment Commission of one of its affirmative action proposals. This is a matter to which I may return in the


future, but I shall make a few comments on it now. The proposals reveal in clear terms a criticism that we have made of the FEC and of the fair employment programme, but which has been denied by Government—the concept of quotas. We said that legislation is heading towards quotas. The Government said, "No, it is not; we do not intend to have quotas".
Last week's publication contained six so-called affirmative action programmes of action that must be taken by an employer. The programmes are legally enforceable because the FEC is in a position to issue directions to the employer. The FEC has placed on the employer the requirement of achieving a certain percentage of applications and appointments. What is that if not a quota?
A quota cannot sit alongside the requirement of appointments being made on merit. There is an important issue of principle here. It is amazing to see a Conservative Government ignore this issue of principle, because were it to happen on their home patch they would take a different approach. There is a distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. It is right that there should be equality of opportunity, but nobody in his right mind thinks that, even where there is complete equality of opportunity, it will automatically and fairly result in equality of outcome in every place of employment. That is not to be expected. Talents and circumstances will vary and historical patterns will apply in various places. Equality of opportunity is one thing; equality of outcome is totally different.
The Fair Employment Commission, as announced by its chairman a couple of reports ago, has set itself the target of achieving equality of outcome in every place of employment in Northern Ireland. It has said that it is setting quotas for all those places. It does not initially set quotas for all of them, but if a firm comes to the FEC's attention or annoys the chairman in some way, he can bring the apparatus to bear and require people to enter affirmative action programmes. That can be backed up with statutory declarations and firms can be given a specific quota that they must achieve, with ferocious penalties to be applied if they do not achieve it.
The matter must be considered. A couple of years ago, the then Home Secretary, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech in the House dealing with questions of racial equality in England and Wales, stated that the Home Office had decided that it was not appropriate to try to achieve equality of outcome for ethnic minorities in England in all places of employment because of the problems to which that would give rise. Yet that is exactly what is happening in Northern Ireland.
It is only a matter of time before some of the disadvantaged ethnic minorities in England and Wales—the employment disparities for Afro-Caribbean people, for example, in England and Wales are just as great as, if not greater than the employment disparities in Northern Ireland—say, "Why are special measures adopted in Northern ireland, but not in England?" It is only a matter of time before they say that the reason is that nobody is shooting people or letting off bombs on the issue in England. It is then only a matter of time before thoughts move further among disadvantaged people in England and Wales. The Government need to think about the matter

more clearly. One cannot corral the issues into Northern Ireland and expect them to have no application in equivalent situations elsewhere.
I have criticised the concept of quotas. Even if one accepts quotas, one has to say that the Fair Employment Commission in Northern Ireland is applying the quotas in a dishonest and unbalanced manner. I take as an example one of six firms—a bakery in Castlereagh; I am not sure whether it is in Belfast, East or in Strangford. The FEC has set a quota for the firm by reference to its catchment area, or what it takes to be the catchment area. It has taken the area of the city of Belfast and the district council of Castlereagh. It has looked at the people who are economically active in those areas and has found out that there is a certain percentage of Catholics. It has then set a quota with reference to that figure. That is a dishonest way in which to proceed.
The firm is situated in Castlereagh in east Belfast, and the bulk of the employees are drawn from east Belfast. Is east Belfast taken as the catchment area? Oh no. The catchment area is broadened to include north and west Belfast, where there are very few employees. If it is broadened to include north and west Belfast, why not broaden it on the other side to include North Down and Ards? Geographically, they are no further away. In terms of communications and in terms of journey time, they are closer. In terms of human, social and geographical factors, they are closer than west Belfast. It is a question of sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander. It is a question of adopting a consistent approach. Such an approach has not been adopted in this case, and that is why I say that the matter is dishonest.
The quota system is unfair in the way in which it operates. I take the example of a firm called Quinns in Fermanagh. The employees are predominantly Catholic and there are only a handful of Protestants—1 or 2 per cent. A quota has been set for that firm. It has been told that it must achieve a target of 12 per cent. of applicants and appointees. I am quoting from memory, so I may not have the figure exactly correct. It is not clear how that figure is arrived at. In what the FEC takes to be the catchment area of Quinns, 45 per cent. of those who are economically active are Protestant, yet the quota is 12 per cent., not 45 per cent. Why?
The third example is a firm in my constituency. The catchment area, as determined by the FEC, is 40 per cent. Catholic, so the quota is 40 per cent. Catholics. Why is there a disparity between that firm and Quinns? There is something unequal. In the six cases, there is a pattern of inequality in the FEC's approach. I fear that it is an issue to which we shall return again and again. As I have said, a wrong approach, in principle, has been adopted. Not only is it wrong in principle, but it is being carried out in a dishonest manner.
I am using the word "dishonest" deliberately. I am not saying that it is by mistake or through negligence, but that there is malice involved. I make that reference knowing full well the personalities involved. That issue, especially with regard to fair play, is one that I may develop again on another occasion.

Mr. William Ross: When my hon. Friend is detailing the different approaches used by the Fair Employment Commission, he neglects to mention that, in my area, it leaves out of the reckoning those people from the Irish Republic and elsewhere in the British Isles who are


employed by firms such as Quinns, organisations such as the Western health and social services board and many others.

Mr. Trimble: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. Those issues are left out. There are many more things that one can say. The statistical basis on which the Commission is operating is inaccurate because it is drawing from figures relating to the number of persons employed and unemployed in some areas, which we know are not accurate, especially in the rural areas and close to the border.
Anybody who has had any dealings with the issue knows that the two greatest elements which affect economic activity and which are most likely to create a black economy are agriculture and the cross-border areas, where many people take jobs in one jurisdiction and claim benefit in others, or engage in activities such as smuggling. In certain areas, the employment statistics are not reliable. At a firm not very far away from Lurgan in my constituency, the management in a previous dispensation were in the habit of laying on a bus on Fridays so that the workers could go down to Newry to claim benefit. Of course, they no longer have to claim in person, but that is a different issue.
I shall move from the issue of the Fair Employment Commission to something that falls directly within the scope of the Minister: arts policy and matters related to cultural traditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) also touched on that issue when he referred to the local government legislation and the provision for street names in Irish. I wonder how many of those street names in Irish will be in Ulster Gaelic, or whether they will be in the dialect of Gaelic taught in certain schools—a modern invention based on what is thought to be the Gaelic spoken in the centre of Ireland.
Those who have studied the area know that there are three different forms of Gaelic spoken on the island of Ireland. The schools and others who are promoting the so-called Irish language in Northern Ireland today, under the aegis of the Minister, are not promoting Ulster Gaelic. One wonders why that is so. Most people who are involved in its promotion are perhaps not aware of the distinction between Ulster Gaelic and the Gaelic spoken in the centre of Ireland. Ulster Gaelic is on the borderline between Scots Gaelic and that spoken a bit further south.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The Minister would be fully aware of Scots Gaelic.

Mr. Trimble: Of course the Minister is fully familiar with such matters, in which I hope he will take a keener interest.
Returning to arts, cultural traditions and so on, I am disturbed by the policy papers being produced by the Arts Council. It seems to be recognising only what it calls a classic tradition and an Irish tradition in the arts and related matters. Where is the British tradition? The classic tradition, as it recognises it, refers to certain forms of high art. It also recognises what it calls an Irish culture and supports certain forms of cultural activities in the broad sense which are passed off as being Irish. Where is the British in that?
The Minister will also be familiar with the pipe bands association. I am sorry to say that, in the recent world championships, the Ulster pipe bands were temporarily demoted from their dominance of pipe-band playing. They

will be back. The Field Marshal Montgomery pipe band will be back, I am quite sure, as the champion of champions, having being the champion of champions for many years and having lost it only this year.
The Minister cannot fail to be aware of the number of Scottish pipe bands that exist in Northern Ireland and the high level of activity in them. Has the Arts Council ever recognised it? Does the Arts Council recognise it? Has it done anything to promote that aspect of popular culture?
Anyone who goes around our towns, particularly on a Friday night, cannot help but notice the large number of band parades that take place. That is another clear demonstration of popular culture. Thousands of people are involved in musical activity in connection with such bands. The Arts Council will not support pipe bands, which do not fall within its concept of classic culture or Irish culture. Something is being left out. That reinforces the unease that many of us have felt about the Arts Council and other cultural traditions in Northern Ireland in recent years. We feel that the Arts Council does not reflect what most people want and do. It reflects only certain aspects of culture as a result of pressure generated sometimes by pressure groups within Northern Ireland and sometimes by pressure groups outside.
Time is moving on. I should like to make a few brief comments about some of the points that have been made by other hon. Members. Some references have been made to transport matters and in particular the transport links of the northern corridor through Belfast, Larne and Stranraer to Carlisle. The Minister will know that we return to the issue again and again because it is tremendously important to the Northern Ireland economy. We are distressed at the number of occasions when people give public support to a different corridor which will not benefit the Northern Ireland economy so much.
We appreciate the help that we are beginning to receive from the Scottish Office in representations to Europe about the northern corridor. I only wish that the Northern Ireland Office was just as vigorous on that matter and, in particular, took account of the disadvantage that we suffer because we are not eligible for funds from the cohesion fund. We know that the rules of the European cohesion fund cannot be changed. We do not qualify for cohesion fund moneys, but the southern corridor does. Consequently that part of the country will be able to invest to the disadvantage of our major outlets. What does the Northern Ireland Office propose to do to rectify that imbalance and ensure that the northern corridor and our major outlets of Belfast and Lame are not placed at a disadvantage, especially in view of the effect that that will have on our economy and on unemployment?
Planning has been mentioned in the debate, as it has in other debates. I find myself in fundamental agreement with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on agricultural occupancy conditions. The conditions restrict the occupancy of certain of the properties in the countryside which are subject to them to persons who are wholly or mainly employed in agriculture or were last so employed.
The important point is that, given that farming units in Northern Ireland are much smaller and that half the people who own farming units work only part time, to what extent is it reasonable to draw the agricultural occupancy condition so tightly that the person has to be wholly or mainly employed in agriculture? Particularly as changes take place in agriculture and the income derived from it


diminishes—as it will as the years go on—an agricultural occupancy condition restricted to people mainly or wholly employed in agriculture is too tight.
It might be more appropriate to restrict agricultural occupancy to people who have a genuine connection with the countryside and a bona fide reason for living there. The conditions must be more flexible. The Department can do something about that immediately. It does not require legislation. It is a matter of policy and the way in which the agricultural occupancy condition is framed.

Mr. William Ross: Considering what my hon. Friend is saying, and as the Government are pushing the whole question of diversification, surely it is feasible that anyone who is involved in such diversification fails to qualify.

Mr. Trimble: I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. If we have a more flexible approach, and if the occupancy condition relates to people who have a genuine connection with the countryside and a good reason for living there in terms of family connection or whatever, that would take care of the problem. I am not arguing for the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions entirely.
There was a time not long ago when the planning service was rather lax. It was granting permission under the exceptions to the rural planning policy and not attaching an agricultural occupancy condition to it, and the temptation to make a quick killing by selling the property to persons who did not have a connection with the countryside was too great. I agree therefore that there must be some form of condition, but it must relate to the circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland, in social terms and in terms of farm size.
I shall make one further point on this matter. As many people wish to live in the countryside, not necessarily in individual farm dwellings but certainly outside towns, I am sorry that the planning service has not given more thought to creating new villages in the countryside. If new villages were created, it would help to absorb some of the demand that has been generated by persons not connected with the countryside who want to live in a more rural environment.
There are places where new villages would have developed if there had been no planning controls. I can think of one area in my constituency adjacent to the shores of Lough Neagh. If there were no planning controls, a village would be beginning to emerge naturally in that area. Planners are trying to prevent those natural developments from taking place through planning controls. Is that desirable? We should have a slightly more imaginative approach on that issue.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I defend the right of my colleagues on both sides of the House to pepper the Minister with every sort of problem on every vote contained in the Northern Ireland estimates, which are effectively the appropriation order. However, I shall concentrate my fire on one matter.
In that, I have the pleasure of directly following the issue raised by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) about planning. I know that, if the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) were here, he would be assenting as well, because it is an issue

that he raised during the debate on the previous appropriation order, when he emphasised the considerable frustration of people with the planning service.
Before I refer to that matter, I must endorse the remarks made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann about the Full Employment Commission and its behaviour with so-called goals and timetables, and the total inconsistency of the way in which it applies the legislation, which is sometimes little short of a personal vendetta for those who do not toady to the chairman of the Full Employment Commission. We shall come back to that issue.
I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman down the road of the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit. I shall keep my powder dry on that matter, as the Select Committee is presently examining it.
I raise these issues because, by and large, if I can get a satisfactory response from Ministers on matters of constituency interest, I do not feel that it is necessary to bring them to the attention of the House. I find that Ministers are helpful in dealing with those issues, and I rarely find it necessary to bring a grievance to the House.
There is a major problem affecting the borough of Castlereagh, part of which is in my constituency of East Belfast, part of which is in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), part of which is in the constituency of Strangford and part of which is in the constituency of North Down. Not only was the borough divided so badly. Back in the early 1980s, when my party was in control of the council, we had to adopt a recreation policy for the whole of Castlereagh.
We looked around, and we did not have to look much further than neighbouring Belfast to see the folly of building conventional leisure facilities which cost ratepayers millions of pounds. In Belfast, some £8 million is spent in leisure services on facilities which are duplicated on street corners all around the city and which cost considerable amounts to run. There is a limited clientele for those facilities and, while we have excellent leisure facilities, they are all of the same kind throughout the Province, and they are competing for the same market.
My colleagues and I concluded that it would be sensible for us to look for a niche which was not being catered for by other councils and one which, in financial terms, would do more to pay its way and attract larger numbers of people. We proceeded on the basis of a development at Dundonald, which was to have been the Dundonald international ice bowl. The property was to contain an international-sized ice rink, ten pin bowling, children's play centres, a laser area, restaurants, and function suites for all sorts of recreational activities.
A tourist park was to be built outside the facility, which was to include a large man-made lake with boating, sporting and wildlife aspects. There were to be tennis courts, a golf course, a driving range, camping sites, an hotel, a cinema and other facilities and provisions.
We approached the Department of the Environment, which was having none of it. We were told that, if we wanted to proceed with the scheme, the normal 75 per cent. grant which was being accorded to all of our sister councils across Northern Ireland would not be accorded to us, because it was more of a commercial enterprise. The council, rather than burdening the ratepayers with a provision similar to that which everyone else had done, decided to go it alone. In doing so, the council knocked on the door of Europe, seeking funding on the basis of providing tourist facilities in Northern Ireland.
In 1985, the council was successful in being offered a grant of £4 million for the provision, and it was agreed with the European Community that the scheme would proceed in two phases. The first phase opened in 1986, and has returned a trading profit every year since. It has made a trading profit of about £1 million in a period when some £50 million was lost in Belfast on leisure services.
In terms of our intention to save ratepayers money and provide new facilities, it was a success. But the problems started to occur when we attempted to fulfil the remainder of our obligation to the European Community following the building of the leisure park provision. First, we submitted our case to the Belfast urban area plan hearings.
Hon. Members from outside Northern Ireland may not be fully aware of the planning restrictions in Northern Ireland. District councils are not capable of giving themselves planning approval: they must go to the Department of the Environment and put in an application like everybody else, whether it is for an extension to a garage or whatever.
The Department of the Environment decides on those issues after consultation with the district council and following the normal public consultation process.
We put in our planning application to the 1998 Belfast area hearings. Everyone had the opportunity at the public hearings to argue for or against the proposals. When the Belfast urban area plan 2001 was issued, I was pleased to note that the planning commissioners, who had listened to the evidence, and the Department of the Environment and its then Minister, supported the second phase of Castlereagh scheme. We therefore felt sure that everything would move smoothly from then on.
Full of enthusiasm, as soon as the Belfast urban area plan came out, we immediately got our architects and consultants to prepare the easiest of the schemes, so that we could start immediately. We planned to follow up with the rest of the scheme while the first phase was proceeding.
The Department of the Environment, however, refused to accept it in that manner, and stopped us immediately proceeding with the scheme. At considerable cost and effort, it required us to undertake the lengthy process of bringing in all our consultants to submit the entire scheme in one go. We sought to accommodate the Department, and withdrew our planning application for part of the development, in deference to the advice that it had offered to us.
The consultants were brought in and asked to work up the entire plan. We then had detailed consultations with all the Government agencies concerning road services and relevant environmental issues, and had discussions with the planning department and whomsoever. We assumed that, once we had given the Department of the Environment, to its satisfaction, the details that it had requested on various matters, the rest of the process would be a simple one.
We did not take into account the fact that, regrettably, a local government election was in the offing. The local Tory party, which had no other policy that it felt would be attractive to the ratepayers of Castlereagh, sought to make an election issue of the theme park. It did so in an attempt to generate some publicity for itself and to create noise far greater than its strength in the area. As a result, the Department of the Environment ran scared and called for a public inquiry.
It might be worth noting that the local government election gave its own verdict to those Tories who had led

the campaign—most of them lost their deposits, and all were rejected by the electorate. Not one of them was returned to the council.
The public inquiry was held on 5 January 1993, but up until this moment, we have still not received an answer as to whether approval has been given. The development would bring literally thousands of jobs to Northern Ireland, both in the building industry as the project proceeds and in the services industry when it has been constructed. The issue is of considerable importance in terms of employment and in terms of the finance from Europe. As I said, we had support from Europe in grant aid, part of which we took up for the first phase of the development, while the rest is still sitting there.
We subsequently received a letter from the Minister responsible for the Department of Economic Development. He is also, peculiarly enough, the Minister responsible for the Department of the Environment. Wearing his DED hat, the Minister told us that, if we had not completed the theme park by 31 December 1994, the grant would be withdrawn. At the same time, wearing his Department of the Environment hat, the Minister is refusing to give an answer to our planning application so that we can proceed.
We cannot win until the Minister sorts himself out. I do not ask him to act on the planning application and the report, which he will by now have received from the planning commissioner—who, in the middle of the process, had a heart attack but, happily, is now back at his desk. That added further delay to the process.
I simply ask for an expeditious response from the Department to the Planning Appeals Commission report. It is essential that we have that immediately if we are to have the least chance of meeting deadlines set by the Minister under his Department of Economic Development portfolio.
We also ask the Minister to be flexible in terms of that deadline. We need a speedy response from the Department of the Environment's planning service to the reserve matters that must be dealt with, for the whole matter must be dealt with in a few months' time. That does not mean that the £30 million to £40 million development must go up within that time, but enough of it must go ahead in order that we receive EC funding.
First, we need a speedy response to the planning application; secondly, we need flexibility in terms of the deadline; and, thirdly, we need some movement from the planning service to help us get speedy approvals for the reserve planning issues.
If the Department of the Environment planning service is considering planning legislation, and a new draft order is in the slips, will it deal with some of the issues which it has failed to deal with thus far? The first concerns ex post facto planning applications, an issue which I have raised it in the House before.
Northern Ireland now has almost an epidemic of people who start construction—even of housing estates—and put in their planning applications afterwards. They reckon that, once the construction is there, it will be difficult for the planning department to demand that it be knocked down, which gives them the edge with their application.
I suggested to the previous Minister responsible for the environment that a possible solution was to institute a penalty system for those forced to put in a planning application after construction had begun. I suggested that the cost of an ex post facto planning application should be 10 times as much as a normal one. That could amount to a considerable sum for those who breach the law on major


housing developments and other aspects of construction. The new order, when the Department eventually gets round to it, should consider that issue.
Another issue which the Government should deal with, either through the new order or through regulation, is what I would call an anomaly whereby a privileged position is given to those involved in agriculture. I do not argue against that, but those involved in equestrian sports and rearing horses should be entitled to the same planning leniency as those directly involved in agriculture.
Equally, those involved in tropical and ornamental fish do not have the same privileges as those involved in the farming of other fish or in agriculture. The same encouragement should be given to them as is given to those directly involved in farming.
I support the view that has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about reform of the agricultural occupancy conditions. As mine is a suburban constituency, several of my constituents have expressed anxieties about that. The Department must consider the issue.
I also think that the Department must bring into law, as opposed to general precedent, a right of appeal for objectors, and an entitlement to neighbour notification. During those glorious days of the Northern Ireland Assembly, from 1982 to 1986, the Environment Committee, of which I was Chairman, made a recommendation to the then Under-Secretary of State, who is now warming himself in Hong Kong, to the effect that people should have the right to neighbour notification—that they were entitled to know if someone intended to build close to their home or business, so that they might be properly consulted and have the right to object.
We went a step further than the Department eventually did; we asked not only that they should be written to directly, but that what are termed "planning poles" should be erected on the site—I think that some Scandinavian countries do it—so that not only the people who live adjacent to the place where the building will be erected, but the people who use that area, can see that there is an intention to develop a piece of ground.
I would ask that, instead of that being done as a matter of precedent in the Department, where it is not required by law but is done by the grace and favour of the Department, it be brought into an Order in Council, so that it would be a legal right on which people could rely.
The same is true of the right of appeal for objectors. It depends on the grace and favour of the Department whether, if two thirds or more of a district council supports objectors to an application, the matter can go before a public hearing—what is now in article 30 in the new planning order. I ask that that be part of a new planning order, instead of just a general regulation in the Department.
I trust that the Minister will consider those suggestions, which, speaking as one who is involved at the grass roots with planning issues, would do much to take away some of the frustration that many of us feel in knowing what is needed in our areas but having bureaucrats tell us what is good for us.
I have no axe to grind against the people who are involved in the planning department. I recognise that they have a difficult task, and that decisions have to be taken.

But, like every other hon. Member who has spoken about those planning issues, I do not believe that enough account is taken of the people who live in the areas, those who are involved on the ground and those who represent the people on the ground. If the planning service is supposed to be a service, who is it servicing if it does not recognise the wish and the will of the people?

Mr. William O'Brien: This debate, like all the other debates on the appropriation orders, allows hon. Members from Northern Ireland to develop the discussion involving their constituents and their constituencies. Because circumstances permit, the 10-minutes rule on speeches does not apply and therefore the debate has widened into a discussion of many aspects that are of importance to Members when considering an appropriation order.
I draw the attention of the House to the part of the schedule of the order that refers to the Department of Economic Development, because a great deal of taxpayers' money is allocated in the order for the purpose of industrial development and the creation of jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), in opening the debate for the Opposition, expressed anxiety about and dwelt at length on the subject of unemployment.
I received in the mail a copy of the front page of the Carrickfergus Advertiser of 15 June 1994. The report states that the new mayor, Sam Crowe, is asking for the Prime Minister to intervene over the proposals by the Northern Ireland Office to close the commercial activities of the Carrickfergus harbour. I understand that there has been significant and lengthy exposure on the future use of the Carrickfergus port.
I also understand that one reason why the town's mayor wrote to the Prime Minister was that the Department of the Environment has issued a vesting order on the commercial land and has given the port users until the end of July to vacate the site. Employees at the port have been put on redundancy notice. The problem in Carrickfergus has been intensified because of the order issued by the Department of the Environment.
Those job losses come on top of other recent major job losses in the region. We must ask what the Northern Ireland Office is thinking of to allow vesting orders to be imposed on commercial land, driving businesses away from the township. It appears to outsiders that the Department's economics is that of the madhouse. That seems to be an apt description of the Department of the Environment—jobs are being lost because of the dogma attached to the closure of the commercial activities at the Carrickfergus port. I thought that when the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was developing his argument about the port he would refer to that subject because of the significance to it of the order that has been issued.
I understand that there have been discussions on the subject over a long period. When the alterations to the town map for the 1988–95 period were being considered, the problem was discussed. There was also a significant discussion on the port's future at a public inquiry in November 1992 on the Carrickfergus maritime area. There was a recent debate at a meeting of the Carrickfergus town council. A report on the debate was sent to me. A motion


was put before the council to rescind a previous decision agreeing to the closure of the commercial industries in the region.
One councillor mentioned the issue of abandoning the harbour. He said that councillors had once again been misled when they were told that from 1 July all operations on the commercial harbour would cease. He said that the harbour was not part of the hinterland and that commercial activity should be retained at the harbour. When the debate was winding down an alderman asked the town clerk to seek legal advice from the town solicitor on the consequences of voting for a rescinding motion. He concluded:
I am distressed and very annoyed about the redundancies. I work with unemployed people every day of the week and I see the ravages of unemployment. It is the scourge of the nation when people are made redundant.
This sort of involvement by a whole community goes to show the depth of the concern felt about unemployment, the loss of revenue to the area and the lost job opportunities that ensue.
Carrickfergus harbour has been the backbone of the town, and one can understand the worries about the consequences of redundancies for the community. It is now accepted that mistaken decisions have been taken over the past few years. They should be analysed and reviewed. Redundancy and its causes should not be taken lightly by Ministers, and they should now review the planning approvals given in connection with the drawing up of the town map.
On behalf of the locally elected representatives, business men and trade unionists of the town, I ask the Minister to consider withdrawing the vesting order to allow me, and other interested parties, to discuss the matter with him so that a full investigation can be launched into the whole affair of the Carrickfergus port.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) referred to the water supply in parts of his constituency. Earlier, I questioned the Minister about what is happening to the water industry in Northern Ireland. I would be interested to know how much is being spent on privatisation, for instance. Problems with water supply and sewerage systems should be given a much higher priority than privatisation.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) discussed the housing situation. The last time we debated an appropriation order I dwelt at some length on it too. The situation has not improved much since then. More resources still need to be channelled into providing new homes, improving existing stock and accommodating the homeless. I hope that the Minister will pay serious attention to what the hon. Gentleman had to say on this subject. Northern Ireland still has a significant need for more housing.
Finally, the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) raised the issue of health and social services. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has an Adjournment debate on this very point tonight, and I do not want to take up time that he could spend developing his theme. I would, however, draw attention to a press statement issued by the Civil Liberties Council on 9 June relating to the issue on which the hon. Member for North Down spent his entire speech: the closing of homes for the elderly. Who is responsible for closing old people's homes? Is it the health and social services board or the new trusts? The hon. Member for

North Down put the blame on the new trusts. If that is the case, why do they not carry out reasonable and proper consultation with all those involved? One of the problems is that people are not aware of what they are entitled to or of the consultation procedures that should be adopted.
The Minister should investigate the reasons for the lack of proper consultation. Perhaps he would give the new trusts some guidance to ensure that before they make a decision they consult those who will be the victims of that decision.
What sort of animal have the Government introduced with the new trusts? The hon. Member for North Down accepted that they are bodies with no responsibility to the community, are unfair and undemocratic, yet they decide the destinies and quality of life for many old people in their areas. Will the Minister listen to the Northern Ireland Council for Civil Liberties on this and other matters involving community care?

Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is developing an important point about the unrepresentative character of the trust boards. Does he appreciate that exactly the same point can be made about the area boards, which are equally unrepresentative?

Mr. O'Brien: That point has been raised in previous debates on appropriation orders. It is true that the health and social services board is in the same category. New quangos are being introduced. The Government should accept that they were wrong when they set up the health and social services board. They should have included some system of democracy when setting up the trust boards. I dwelt on the issue of the trust boards because I share the concern expressed by hon. Members about what is happening to old people's homes. There is a need for the greater involvement of local people who are answerable to the community. Until that happens, the issue will be raised in every Northern Ireland debate in the House. Unfortunately, many people will suffer in the meantime.
I ask the Minister carefully to consider the points raised by many hon. Members. Action needs to be taken on a number of issues, and especially on the question of old people's homes and the Carrickfergus port. I hope that the Minister will accede to some of the points raised tonight.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): I shall deal first with the last point raised by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) about where the final decision lies. I do not want to pre-empt my answer to the Adjournment debate or to the points raised about the Banks residential home. However, my noble Friend Lady Denton must endorse any decisions. She made it clear that she has visited or will visit the homes concerned and will weigh up all the information that she receives before making up her mind on the closure proposal. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that my noble Friend is most sincere in giving that undertaking.
Tonight, as usual, we had an interesting debate. I was sorry that, yet again, the Liberal Benches were empty. The Leader of the Liberal party tells us of his interest in Northern Ireland, but when we debate the nuts and bolts of how Northern Ireland works the Liberal Bench tends to be empty. We all regret that and a number of comments have already been made which I do not intend to take up.

Mr. Peter Robinson: How is possible for the Minister to admonish absent Liberals without admonishing absent SDLP Members?

Mr. Ancram: That matter has already been raised. It was dealt with and an explanation was given by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). Members of the party to which the hon. Gentleman referred normally attend such debates. I was making the point that, despite the fact that the Liberals purport to have an interest in Northern Ireland, the Liberal Bench tends to be empty on these occasions. I am sure that that is of great regret to all hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that I would deploy a Noah's flood of answers in responding to the debate. His analogy may have been wrong. I feel more like a cork floating on the flood of points that emanated from speeches made tonight. I shall deal with as many as possible, but if I fail to deal with a particular point I will—as is traditional—arrange for the hon. Member concerned to receive a letter from me or from the Minister responsible.
It is important in a debate such as this that Northern Ireland Members have an opportunity to raise matters of concern to their constituents, as was done tonight. When I wound up the last appropriation order debate, I remarked that it remained a matter of sadness to me that the public hear not a selling of Northern Ireland—persuasion that Northern Ireland is a good place to live, invest and create jobs—but almost the opposite. The nature of the process is such that we tend to talk Northern Ireland down. I say to all hon. Members who quite rightly raised the question of unemployment—which I shall address in detail later—that if we are serious about attracting investment and jobs to the Province, we should remember that we do ourselves no good by continually describing Northern Ireland in the somewhat lurid terms used in debates such as this.
I begin by putting myself forward as the salesman for Northern Ireland and placing one or two important points on the record. Northern Ireland's economy is growing faster than the national economy. We did not hear much about that tonight, but it is a fact. Seasonally adjusted unemployment has fallen in eight of the last nine months. The Industrial Development Board has come in for compliments and criticism tonight, but it had considerable success in attracting inward investment over the past two years, and it made a promising start this year. That is all building towards the sort of jobs that we are looking for in Northern Ireland.
As to agriculture, income from farming increased 17 per cent. in real terms in 1993, which must be welcomed. The sum of £5 million was made available for rural development—£2 million more than last year, which reflects the importance of trying to develop the countryside for the benefit of the whole of Northern Ireland.
I will deal later with the specific points about housing, but the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's gross resources in 1994–95 are £522 million, which is £17 million more than last year—not a reduction, as was suggested. The number of unfit dwellings reduced from 11 per cent. in 1987 to 8 per cent. in 1991. That is good news for those who live in houses in Northern Ireland and for those whom we are trying to attract to Northern Ireland. Per capita spending continues to be substantially higher than nationally, at £788 in 1992–93; the UK average was £586. That, too, is to be welcomed.
Health and social services have also come in for a good deal of comment this evening. Spending has risen by 37.8 per cent. in real terms between 1980–81 and 1994–95. This year, £1,293 million will be spent on hospitals, community health, personal social services, trusts and family health services—a 6.8 per cent. increase on last year's spending.
While making valid points about problems in their constituencies, Northern Ireland Members must not lose sight of what is good in Northern Ireland, or of the continuing need to put that message across. Ultimately, that is more important to the development of the Northern Ireland economy and to Northern Ireland jobs than many of the other matters that we discuss in debates such as this.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's defence of the Government's policies, but does he accept that people are not in a position to hear that sort of good news in tonight's debate because the task of Northern Ireland Members is to draw attention to areas which still need improvement? Outside the House, we certainly present a positive image of Northern Ireland, but it is the Government's job, not ours, to defend their record tonight.

Mr. Ancram: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but it is not just a question of defending the Government's record; it is a question of pointing out that many good things are happening in Northern Ireland. We all want to say that, and it is my responsibility to put it on the record now. We have heard a good many gloomy stories about the Province this evening.
I come now to the specific issues that have been raised. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), intervening in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, pointed out that the number of "pure" holiday visitors to Northern Ireland had doubled in the past five years. One in five visitors is now a holidaymaker. Of the 1.26 million visitors to Northern Ireland in 1993–94—that figure was mentioned earlier—250,000 are "pure" holiday visitors. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that he can work on those figures in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) raised the question of the links between the Republic and Wales, and whether they were receiving more favourable treatment from the European Community than the Northern Ireland-Scotland links. In the first instance, it is for the EC to decide what types and levels of funding are made available to member states under the structural funds; it is then for each member state to decide how to allocate the resources thereby made available. So far, projects to develop links between Northern Ireland and Scotland have benefited considerably from EC grants, and have remained competitive with links between the Republic and Wales. I hope that that will continue.
The hon. Members for Wigan and for Antrim, North both made important points about unemployment, to which I referred earlier. I recognise the seriousness of unemployment in Northern Ireland, but I am pleased to note that the unemployment figures for May 1994 show a decrease of 1,000 on the previous month, and of 5,400 on May 1993. The seasonally adjusted total has fallen for eight of the past nine months; in January it fell below 100,000 for the first time since July 1991. Although there is no room for complacency, it is important to note that the trends are moving in the right direction, particularly in comparison with those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Wigan mentioned the long-term unemployed. As he knows, there are a number of programmes that demonstrate the Government's anxiety to deal with the problem—action for community employment, the job training programme and Enterprise Ulster. All those are being used in the attempt to make inroads into a serious problem.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned inadequate funding for community care reform. Again, I think it important to put on record that the Government have made substantial allocations of additional money for that purpose. In 1993–94, the boards were allocated £29.45 million, of which £24.63 million was transferred from the social security budget to spend on the new arrangements. A further £41.22 million has been allocated for 1994–95, and £35.34 million will be allocated in 1995–96, bringing the total cumulative additional money for community care to £106 million. In the light of what has been said, it is important to register that point.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North made a large number of points, and although I may not be able to deal with them all I shall try to deal with some. Like many other hon. Members, he raised the issue of rural planning. The objective of the Department of the Environment's rural planning strategy is to assess and balance the need for development of houses and jobs in particular areas against the need to protect and conserve the environment within that area. It aims to match development to rural settings with the right design and has been generally welcomed. Although some people are unable to build houses in the countryside—they tend to be the ones that, inevitably, we hear about—it is worth pointing out that on average 78 per cent. of planning applications submitted each year for development in rural areas are approved. Although we hear some of the difficult stories, a much more balanced picture appears when we look at all the statistics.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I assume that the Minister does not take into account the number of inquiries that are made and the fact that the planning department advises applicants that they need not make an application because it will be refused.

Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that in planning terms it is dangerous—I speak from a certain amount of personal experience—to consider only inquiries, which can be made on a number of levels. It is important to look at the number of applications, which shows an applicant's seriousness, compared with the number that are approved—the vast majority.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North asked about training in Northern Ireland. The allocation to the Training and Employment Agency in 1994–95 is £203 million, compared with £193 million in 1993–94. Allocations to all major training schemes have increased. We are concerned to help as many young people as possible, and those figures fly in the face of some of the suggestions that have been made tonight that training resources have been reduced.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North raised the question of the Springvale campus. The Government have made it clear from the outset that we shall consider any case put forward by the university, but a decision will take into account an examination of the implications for the higher education system in Northern Ireland as a whole, the impact that the scheme would have on the regeneration of the north and west Belfast area and an assessment of the

public expenditure implications, given the current limitations on available resources. A number of the concerns that the hon. Member raised will be considered by the Government.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) covered a number of points which had been mentioned by other hon. Members. In particular, he raised the issue of Irish street names. The removal of the prohibition on non-English street names is part of the process to achieve a more open and tolerant society and is a practical manifestation of the Government's recognition of cultural diversity. It should not be seen as a forerunner to bilingualism. It will be for councils to decide whether to erect dual language street names, but if they do, one name must be in English. There is an obligation on councils to take account of the views of occupiers in the street before deciding whether to put up a street name in a language other than English.
The hon. Members for Londonderry, East and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) raised the disturbing question of the water pollution incident on the River Stroule. This has been a matter of major concern. The Department of the Environment is continuing its preparation of a file to send to the Director of Public Prosecutions, with a recommendation to take legal proceedings in relation to the spillage of the wood preservative which gave rise to the incident. That shows the seriousness with which the Government regard that problem.

Mr. William Ross: Surely there is a split personality in the Government's approach? They say that we must integrate everybody, make everybody like each other and become more like each other, and create a more homogenous society; yet they then promote two totally different cultures and always talk about two different communities. Will they make up their mind one way or the other?

Mr. Ancram: When the hon. Gentleman is next in Scotland, he might go to look at Skye, where he will see examples of signs in Gaelic. They were introduced some time ago as a recognition of cultural diversity. We should not be afraid of cultural diversity.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East raised the question of rare illnesses and has written to me about that. He also mentioned the particular case of students. Like others, students may be eligible for income support, notwithstanding the absence of a prior contributions record. That remark is in line with the letter that I wrote to him recently on the matter.
The hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) raised the question of the Banks home. I know that he has raised it on a number of occasions and that he always speaks with great feeling and great eloquence on the subject. I am certainly aware of the strength of feeling in North Down and in the House. I assure him that my noble Friend Lady Denton is fully aware of the concerns. If the trust decides to close the home, my noble Friend will be asked to consider and endorse the decision. My noble Friend has agreed to meet a number of delegations of interested parties and she has also signalled her intention to visit this and any other homes to meet residents and to listen to their views, which is a point made by the hon.


Gentleman. No doubt we shall return to the issue again in the Adjournment debate a little later. I wish to make clear to the hon. Gentleman my noble Friend's intention.
I also put on record my rejection of the comments of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) during the speech by the hon. Member for North Down. People who are appointed to serve on boards and trusts face many difficult choices and decisions, and they do so in the wider interests of all the people in the area. They have a difficult job and I believe that we should recognise their public-spiritedness rather than criticise their efforts to serve their communities.

Mr. William O'Brien: Given the Minister's description of the trusts, will he explain why the home's residents were not consulted, advised and given all the information before the decision was made?

Mr. Ancram: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will attend the Adjournment debate. I do not want to pre-empt what I shall say then. This is very much at the heart of the matters that will be raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). I think that we should await that debate.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree that when a home is to be closed, it is malpractice for civil servants to tell people, "You had better put your name down for a home convenient to this one; if you do not do that now, you will be shifted 10, 20 or 50 miles away from where your people visit." That happened in Broughshane in my constituency, when the Minister's predecessor told me that the home would not close until he met a deputation, yet it was closed before the deputation could meet him.

Mr. Ancram: I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that my noble Friend Lady Denton has fulfilled all her commitments to meeting delegations of people. The hon. Gentleman paid a kind tribute to my noble Friend, for which I was grateful. She has said that she will meet delegations and listen before she comes to a final decision. I should leave it at that because she has to make a difficult decision. She has made it clear that she will make it in the light of comments.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) raised the question of the health service and transport in the rural areas of his constituency and the constituency of the hon. Member for Antrim, North. The provision of hospital services to people in the glens of Antrim has not deteriorated as a result of the transfer of acute services from the Waveney and Moyle hospitals to the new Antrim hospital. Travelling time to the hospital is longer, but the time taken to reach a patient in a emergency remains as before. A very wide range of out-patient clinics is provided at the Waveney and the Moyle. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), the Under-Secretary of State, will shortly be meeting representatives from a number of councils in the area to discuss road access. My noble Friend Baroness Denton has always made it clear that she is keen to hear concerns about health matters generally.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South also raised the question of Orlit houses. I understood that he and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) were keen to meet my hon. Friend and I shall pass that request

on to him and, in any case, I shall write to the hon. Member for Antrim, South about the matters that he raised. He also raised a specific question about the pension rights of employees in the case of privatisation of Northern Ireland airports. It is not intended that the rights of members of the pension scheme, whether current or past, or the assets of the scheme will be affected in any way by privatisation. Privatisation of the ports is being discussed tomorrow and I hope that the position on that can be clarified at that time.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster raised a number of points, many of which, again, were covered by other hon. Members, but he raised the question of Unipork in particular. As he knows, its operational control was taken over by Bridgewater Food Holdings plc. The business, which represents a major part of the Northern Ireland pig industry, has suffered considerable financial losses in recent years. A restructuring plan is currently being prepared by the new owners in an attempt to achieve ongoing viability. The eventual configuration of the business will not be known until the completion of that plan. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster also raised the question of flooding in Castlederg. I can confirm that financial approval has been given to the proposed scheme to provide flood protection on both sides of the banks of the Derg.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann raised the question of fair employment. I must begin by responding—

Rev. William McCrea: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ancram: Of course.

Rev. William McCrea: While appreciating the time that the Minister has at his disposal, there are a large number of other matters which have been raised and there are certainly other matters which have not been raised. For example, the hydro-electric matter in my constituency was raised and there are other major matters of concern. Will we get detailed replies on those through the post?

Mr. Ancram: I told the hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members at the beginning of my winding-up speech that, on any matters which I do not cover now, I or my hon. Friends or my noble Friend will write to hon. Members. In cases where a matter has been raised by a number of hon. Members, I shall ensure that the reply is made known to them all.
I am trying to deal with what I believe to be the important issues raise and an important assertion was made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann on fair employment. I shall begin by refuting his allegations of dishonesty. The recently published report of investigations into six companies which the Fair Employment Commission commenced under section 11 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 found three firms to have employed too few Protestants and three firms too few Catholics.
The affirmative action agreed with all six firms—they were on both sides of that particular problem—included encouraging applications from the under-represented communities, each company's advertisement welcoming applicants from the under-represented communities, effective action to maintain an environment free from harassment and equal opportunity awareness training for all employers. While scales and timetabling have been agreed, it is unrealistic to believe that an exact balance can be achieved, reflecting the overall balance of the Northern


Ireland working population. I heard what the hon. Member had to say and as it is detailed and complex issue I will, if I may, write further to him on that matter.
Finally, I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). He raised the question of planning applications. I shall, of course, bring his comments about the need for an early decision on the planning application in Castlereagh to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield in his capacity as Minister with responsibility for the environment. Likewise, I shall draw to my hon. Friend's attention the other detailed points which were made about the planning process, which were shared by other hon. Members from Northern Ireland.

Mr. William O'Brien: I shall make two points. In the opening statement, when reference was made to the question of expenditure on the water and sewerage service, I asked if it would be possible to give information as to what is being spent on the privatisation of the water services and there was a suggestion that we might hear that information before the end of the evening. Has the Minister any views on the Carrickfergus port?

Mr. Ancram: If I may, I will take that matter to my hon. Friend the Minister and write to the hon. Gentleman. I will also write to the hon. Gentleman about the water privatisation proposals and put the reply in the Library. Proposals have been made about expenditure to ensure that in the coming years there is a sufficient water supply to meet the needs of Northern Ireland. That is the most important point and the point at the bottom of the question that he asked. I can give him detailed figures on that. If I may, I will do so in writing.

Mr. Stott: I apologise to the Minister for not raising this issue when I spoke earlier. On page 7 of the order £220,000 is allocated to the Northern Ireland assembly. Is that estimate included with a view to any progress that may be made in the talks in which the Minister is currently engaged? If he does not want to answer that question now, perhaps he will write to me about it.

Mr. Ancram: I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman. He should not read into that figure any hidden or unsubstantiated agenda that I am not prepared to talk about tonight. I suspect that the figure reflects the ongoing costs of preserving the current position. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and make it clear.
As I said at the beginning, while the Government listen to the legitimate points that have been made by hon. Members tonight, it is important that we do not lose sight of the work and commitment that the Government put into Northern Ireland. I listened tonight to many people saying that in some ways the Government did not recognise the needs of Northern Ireland and that Northern Ireland was underfunded. I leave one thought in the minds of hon. Members tonight: in terms of overall expenditure, Northern Ireland enjoys a lead of more than one third above average United Kingdom expenditure. That reflects the Government's concern about the problems which exist in Northern Ireland. That concern is real and it will continue. I commend the order to the House.

Ordered,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 25th May, be approved.

HEALTH

Ordered,
That Mr. Michael Bates be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr. Jonathan Evans be added to the Committee.—[Sir Michael Neubert, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

SOCIAL SECURITY

Ordered,
That Jane Kennedy be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Kate Hoey be added to the Committee.—[Sir Michael Neubert, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS

Ordered,
That Mr. Kevin Hughes be discharged from the Select Committee to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills and Mr. Stephen Timms be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Residential Homes (Northern Ireland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Rev. Martin Smyth: I was interested in the Minister's comments in the earlier debate. He accused us of not talking up Northern Ireland. It is because we are concerned that the high quality of care manifested in Northern Ireland may be hindered by some policy changes that I am delighted to be able to have this Adjournment debate tonight.
At the outset, I should say that I share the tributes that have already been paid to Baroness Denton. She is one of the few Northern Ireland Ministers in my experience over the years who listens rather than using that lovely old English phrase, "I hear what you say," which means, "I am not listening at all and I am certainly not heeding what you say."
We are equally aware of the constrictions that are placed around a Minister. I had the unhappy experience of dealing with a civil servant who was advising a Minister about housing in my constituency. He said that there had never been houses in that area on that road. Thankfully, one of the delegation had the Ordnance Survey map of the year of my birth, which showed houses on that road.
I am happy to bring before the House some of our anxieties arising out of the closure of residential homes by the Eastern health and social services board. I welcome the opportunity to raise the matter, because it has immediate implications for the area that I represent. It also has widespread ramifications which will affect people not only in Northern Ireland but in Great Britain. Perhaps a cautionary word should go out to the planners: people may not be in the fortunate position of being able to pay for their own care in latter years. We are all getting older and the lifespan for many appears to be increasing. In 30 to 40 years, today's planners could be those requiring care. Therefore, we should all be guided by the principle: "Do unto others as you would they should do unto you".
As a convinced supporter of community care and care in the community, I have never seen them as cheap options. I certainly take issue with national health service planners who seem at times to be using the elderly as pawns, and I object most vehemently to money mattering more than people.
The background to the debate concerns the Department of Health, which has stated its intention to increase the number of elderly people aged over 75 having their long-term needs met at home, rather than in residential care, nursing homes or hospital settings.
Accordingly, the Eastern board has targeted a reduction from the existing provision of 1,823 independent homes and 394 statutory homes to 1,296 independent homes and 303 statutory homes. In south and east Belfast, growth in the private sector was encouraged by the Department and boards, but now many such homes are under threat. However, the real sufferers are elderly people who believed that their latter days would be spent in the settled home of their choice.
Significantly, south and east Belfast have twice the number of over-75s and over-85s as the other three community units of the Eastern health and social services board.

Ms Rachel Squire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that the rigidity of the decision-making by the Eastern heath and social services board about residential homes has been completely unacceptable to the residents, staff and communities concerned? Will he join me in urging the Minister and, indeed, Baroness Denton to tell the board that it must take into account the wishes of the communities concerned and start thinking about people, rather than only targets and beds?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Lady's contribution. She was concerned about the situation in Northern Ireland, and travelled to Belfast at the weekend to discover first hand some of the issues affecting the staff, residents and carers. I share her views about the rigidity of the decision-making.
I shall turn to the criteria that were set to evaluate options. They were, first, the fabric of the building, including costs and suitability for its purpose—although so used for some time—secondly, the standards set by the Registration and Inspection Department; thirdly, the current demand and vacancies; fourthly, the running costs; and, fifthly, the locations within the area. The board added further criteria after discussion, including interest shown by the number of people attending meetings and the comments made. Presumably that took cognisance of the residents' views.
I give that only by way of background, as the issue is much wider. There is a difference in the national health service between the regions. In England, there is an obligation on local authorities to spend 85 per cent. in the private sector. In Scotland, there do not appear, as yet, to be clear guidelines. In Northern Ireland, however, it appears to be purely a numbers game, in which the target calls for 12 per cent. to be catered for in the independent sector, and only 2 per cent. of the elderly to be catered for in the public sector.
The rigidity of the formula does not allow for proper transitional arrangements. People, not beds, would be a better starting point, especially where it was admitted that it would be cheaper to keep open Ardview house in Ardglass.
Community care, as I understand it, should be offering choice, but instead, this chimera is offered. However, those in residential care are offered no choice. Surely there should be a transitional period. Those coming newly into care could have an informed choice and know what their options are, while those already in care should be left to finish their lives in peace.
In 1989, more than 88 per cent. of over-75s lived at home. By the end of 1992, that had fallen to an estimated 82 per cent. I suspect that that was because the Department and the boards were pushing for private homes to be developed. The 1992–1997 strategy document sought to increase that percentage again to 88 per cent. by 1997. However, it would appear that, whereas the Department set a period of five years for the adjustment to take place, the trusts have drastically reduced that to two years.
There does not seem to be any logical basis for the policies being adopted, other than a headlong rush to save money. The Banks home, which has been referred to this evening, has been described as "beautiful and convenient", Ardview as "beautiful but not convenient" and Cairns


house as "old and adapted". Old See house is a comparatively modern, purpose-built building. All are scheduled for closure.
As I have watched not only in the Eastern board area, but also elsewhere in Northern Ireland, it would appear that monetary pressures have led to decisions being taken on the hoof without proper principles or discussions occurring. It is suggested that choice is offered, but no choice is given, because prior decisions have been taken. There can be no useful participation, since the beds are being drastically reduced. Support for residents is being eroded as they are being removed from their areas. The vaunted principle of consent is being denied.
The Minister will be aware that, in exasperation at the way in which they have been treated, legal challenges have been made. I ask the Minister tonight for a clear commitment that there will be no further closures until the issues have been resolved. I do this insofar as the board was challenged in court, and it would seem to me that the incoming community trusts should have been included with them as correspondents.
In fact, in a letter from the Central Services Agency legal eagles dated 13 June 1994, the planning department of the board—in reference to the Banks and Cairns judicial review—were advised:
it is no longer of any consequence and should not hinder any decisions being taken in respect of these two homes.
On the other hand, I draw the Minister's attention to the remarks of Mr. Justice Kerr in the High Court in May, when he suggested that it might be better to take no action on closure until the legal issues were resolved.
May I set out some of the disappointments which have already surfaced? While an advocacy service was promised, the residents had to push for it. The Friends of the Banks had to apply for it on 24 May. That was already on the late side, as—I am sure the Minister will agree—an advocate should be there at the beginning before battle lines are drawn and before the board or trusts decided on closure. The principle of advocacy is one which I, and I hope all reasonable people, support. The advocate should be there, not merely to listen, but to challenge the case for closure.
What has happened has been to some degree a travesty. The system does not appear to be independent, since the board appoints. Nor has it acted as a proper advocate. In the case of Banks, the advocate appeared to cobble together an arrangement. In Cairns and Old See, I admit that the co-operation was better. However, both sets of advocates ultimately relied on grants from the Department, and were not participating in the decision-making process. What plans does the Minister have for taking the process forward positively?
I contend that elderly citizens would appear to have few rights, and professionals can steamroller decisions which are made before any consultation process has been reached. I am not unmindful that options can be studied, but if they are not put forward for rational discussion, we are left only with a charade.
That was clearly illustrated in the decision by the Southern health and social services board to close Moylinn in Craigavon. The decision was announced to the residents on 7 July 1993 by the general manager of the unit, although the consultation period was to have commenced in September 1993. It would appear that the board had already decided to close Moylinn and transfer the residents to the new Fold home in Lurgan.
With a clever display of casuistry, it was argued that the board did not decide until later. It is not surprising, therefore, to read Mr. Justice Kerr's view:
For a consultation period to be meaningful or worthwhile, the body conducting the consultation as a preliminary to making a recommendation must at least be prepared to change the view which it had formed before the consultation took place".
That is what any reasonable person would expect.
Sir William Wade put it well in his sixth edition of "Administrative Law":
Where there is a statutory duty to consult persons affected, this must genuinely be done, and reasonable opportunity for comment must be given".
When other depositions highlighted that the Fold housing association had acquired the site of the Manor house in Lurgan for £4,000, when a similar property opposite was sold on the open market for £150,000, serious questions must be asked. Why shut so many homes, yet subsidise a new one? Was Moylinn really not suitable?
I should like to refer, finally, to a particular constituent, Miss K. G. Faris, now living in Ardview house. The Down-Lisburn unit of management has decided to close it on the issue of accessibility. Only two letters were written on that issue, however, on behalf of the same resident in St. John's house, Downpatrick. Is it not significant that one of those was written by a civil servant working for the Department at Dundonald house? I understand that the noble Lady Baroness Denton has had a letter on the subject, naming the writer.
Furthermore, it seems that Ardview will be shut, but then used as a facility for mental health and disability programmes. Although I recognise that there may need to be rationalisation as well as development of such services, is it just coincidence that the principal social worker who was responsible for the unit's residential homes for the elderly is now director of mental health services for the Down-Lisburn trust?
Although I could enlarge even more on the concerns expressed not only by residents and carers in the Eastern board, but by those even further afield, I will rest my case, so that the Minister is able to respond. If he cannot, I hope that Baroness Denton will exercise her manifest concern and restrain the headlong rush for closure in the statutory sector and show caution in the face of undoubted pressures that have appeared in the independent sector as a result of the strategic changes.
To change the metaphor, we should be wary, or else the chicks, or perhaps the old broilers, will come home to roost.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on obtaining this important debate. I am grateful to him for raising the question of the closure of residential homes by the Eastern health and social services board.
My noble Friend, Baroness Denton, who has responsibility for health and social services matters in Northern Ireland, has asked me to say that she is particularly conscious of the anxiety felt by those frail elderly people who are accommodated in the homes that have been marked down for closure. She has already visited one of those homes at least and has spoken to the residents and carers. She has undertaken to visit all homes


that are referred to her for consideration. On her behalf, I welcome this opportunity to make clear the Government's view on the rationalisation of residential homes.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the new community care arrangements were anticipated in the 1990 policy document, "People First". The new arrangements recognise individual needs and incorporates a proper needs assessment, which allows programmes of care to be individually tailored to suit the needs of the individuals and their carers. That is a most important concept to which the Government are fully committed. As a direct consequence of it, it became necessary to review the level of residential accommodation in the Eastern board area.
The Department of Health and Social Services' regional strategy for 1992 to 1997 requires boards to ensure that the service provision in the community is adequate to meet the assessed needs of the elderly population aged 75 and over who wish to stay in their own homes. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the majority understandably do.
Trusts and directly managed units have responded to the new arrangements and are putting in place the essential range of home care, respite care and other non-residential services that will provide the necessary support for people who chose domiciliary care in preference to residential care. In most instances, people prefer to remain in their homes provided that adequate support is available. That fact is borne out by the figures. Of the 5,900 care packages agreed up to the end of last year, 50 per cent. were domiciliary based; 30 per cent. required nursing home care; and 20 per cent. were in residential care homes. It is clear, therefore, that as an increasing number of people choose to remain in their own homes, boards will have to develop and improve packages of care available in the community.
Some of these services will be provided by non-statutory agencies, which demonstrates the achievement of another essential element in the Government's community care policy—the need to develop a mixed economy of care by encouraging providers from the voluntary and private sectors to take on a greater responsibility for the provision of services.
We place great emphasis on the assessment process, which involves listening to people, and on the development of additional packages of care provided by a range of providers in the community. A framework for the monitoring and evaluation of the new arrangements has been put in place.
It is important that the hon. Gentleman should recognise that the provision of more services in the community has not been stimulated by a desire simply to cut costs, because care in the community is not a cheap option—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) may laugh, but it is certainly not cheap. In bringing forward those reforms, the Government are responding in a sensitive and flexible way to the needs and wishes of individual clients and their carers. The Government recognise the importance of properly financing those reforms and have transferred responsibility form the social security system to the health and social services boards.
Money has followed that move. In 1993–94, almost £30 million was transferred; that increased to more than £70 million in 1994–95. In 1995–96, £106 million will be

available to boards for the development of community care services. Those sums, together with the resources which boards were already expending on community care, represent a substantial commitment to that important group of people.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ancram: I shall give way if I have a little time before the end, but I want to deal with some of the points which the hon. Gentleman raised.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that my noble Friend and I understand the fears of elderly and other vulnerable people and their carers about the level of services available for them. However, what I have said already should go some way to allay those fears and I think that I have demonstrated that every care has been taken to safeguard that vulnerable group of people.
Far from being a threat to the welfare of the elderly and others, the new arrangements are designed to add security and quality to their lives and, wherever possible, to enable them to remain active and part of the community in which they have lived, in some cases for many years.
Attention has rightly been drawn to the sadness that can arise when an elderly person is required to move from a residential home that is to be closed, but the most traumatic move for people is when they have to move from their family home into residential care. There are few instances when such a move is welcomed and many people worry about the prospect of moving away from their familiar surroundings for months before the move takes place. The families of the elderly person also find this move traumatic and are often heard to say that they feel guilty because they cannot care for their elderly relative at home. The policies which we are now implementing aim to delay that move for as long as possible.
I hope that what I have said helps to put in context the background to the present review of statutory accommodation. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, with a diminishing demand it is no longer appropriate to maintain the present levels of residential accommodation. It is clear that fewer residential and nursing home places will be required in future. If we do not rationalise the overall number of places, two things will happen.
First, many high-quality, well-run independent homes will be faced with closure as the diminishing need for residential accommodation is met entirely by the statutory sector. We should not run statutory homes that are not being used to full capacity, and therefore trusts and boards will be forced to abandon the non-statutory provision in the first instance. We also know from experience that it is more expensive to maintain people in statutory homes than in the private and voluntary sectors, and by moving the balance of care towards statutory homes we would be failing to make the best use of available resources.
Secondly, the need to maintain excess accommodation will delay the implementation of improved community care services by reducing the resources that boards can move into their wider community care programme. In order to accommodate a few deserving people, we would be reducing the level of community services available to many more.
If I may discuss the specific points relating to the Eastern health and social services board, it has considered nine homes for closure, and a full round of consultation has now, I understand, been completed. It was the board's


intention to ask my noble Friend to endorse their decision. However, the process has been complicated by the judicial reviews that have arisen from the consultation about some of the homes. In the time since the board began the consultation exercise, the homes have become the responsibility of the newly formed trusts. It will be necessary therefore for the trust boards to consider each closure and to decide if they wish to proceed before Baroness Denton is asked to endorse their decision. That means that the local provider will be, and must be, directly involved. The exceptions to that rule are Warren house, Drumlough house and Ardview house as the decision to close those homes was taken by the board before the judicial review was requested.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, Mr. Justice Kerr, in his ruling on 31 May 1994, rejected the application. The case for closure of those homes has been passed to my noble Friend and it is her intention to meet as many as possible of those people who have asked to speak to her about the closures. She will also visit all the homes and will weigh up the arguments before coming to a conclusion. I am sure that she will also wish to read what the hon. Gentleman has said here tonight. She has already visited Ardview house. She wishes to reach a decision as quickly as possible so that the uncertainty can be removed and, where it is decided to close a home, so that the people concerned can be carefully relocated and begin to build a life with new and old friends without the uncertainty.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman still wishes to intervene.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I look forward to specific answers to the points that I have raised, but I raise one more. The figures that the Minister gave about people going into homes would have left 20 per cent. to be accommodated in homes for the elderly, yet the target is 12 per cent. in the private independent sector and 2 per cent. in the public sector, so 6 per cent. are unaccounted for.

Mr. Ancram: I shall draw that point to the attention of my noble Friend and ask her to write to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will appreciate that the decisions that she has to take are not easy. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that she will make them with concern for the residents as the priority in her agenda.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman can also appreciate why it is necessary for the rationalisation programme to go ahead. It is not a thoughtless dictate, designed to reduce costs or deliberately to close down good-quality, well-utilised homes for elderly people. I understand how difficult it is for the people who are directly affected by a home closure and I give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee that no existing resident of a home that is to be closed will be forced out into the community.
We recognise that most people who have moved out of

their own homes are happy with the type of care that they receive. We know that those homes are now their homes, and fellow residents in a sense their family. We shall deal gently with those people who are to be moved, and we shall give them a choice of alternative accommodation, taking into account groups of friends who would like to stay together.
Trusts will provide an independent advocacy service to ensure that the residents and their families are provided with the full information about the options available to them. The service will collaborate with trusts and units to ensure that the needs and wishes of residents are being considered. Existing residents will be accommodated in other homes just as good as where they live at present. My noble Friend Baroness Denton will keep a very close watch on this programme.
Hon. Members will be reassured to know that the figures obtained for the first nine months, from April to December 1993, show that the assessment and care management processes are coping very well. During that period, boards received 6,600 referrals for care management and carried out more than 5,900 assessments. The split of assessments completed between programmes of care was 73 per cent. elderly, 9 per cent. mental health, 8 per cent. mental handicap, 8 per cent. physical and sensory disabled and 2 per cent. other adult client groups. More than 90 per cent. of the assessments commenced within seven days from referral and at least 80 per cent. of assessments were reported to have been completed within a week. That major achievement has resulted from meticulous preparation by both Government and boards.
It is also important that we keep a close eye on the standards that we have set for access to, and the delivery of, care. If people wish to remain in the community it is important that we have in place high quality services to support their choice. In September it is our intention to undertake a detailed inspection of the assessment process. The focus of that inspection will be to seek to establish that local assessment arrangemments have embraced the priniciples that underpin the community care changes.
The Eastern board has made substantial progress in the development of domiciliary care schemes. The board offers a wide range of facilities for respite, including residential and nursing home care, day care and various forms of sitting services. I hope that the new arrangements for that care will be generally welcomed for their flexible response to an invdividual need. While understanding the deep concern of those affected, I also hope that I have managed to persuade the hon. Gentleman tonight that we have the interests of the residents in those homes at heart.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nineteen minutes to Twelve midnight.